Following on this post from a couple of weeks ago, this NY Times op-ed by University of Texas law professors Bernard Black and Charles Silver, University of Illinois law professor David Hyman, and Columbia law professor William Sage contends that there recent study of malpractice awards in Texas indicates that there is scant evidence that a crisis in states’ tort systems is the driving force behind the increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums. Here is how they summarize the results of their review of all closed claims in Texas between 1988 and 2002, which was the year before the Texas Legislature enacted sweeping tort reform measures:

Large claims (with payouts of at least $25,000 in 1988 dollars) were roughly constant in frequency.
The percentage of claims with payments of more than $1 million remained steady at about 6 percent of all large claims.
The number of total paid claims per 100 practicing physicians per year fell to fewer than five in 2002 from greater than six in 1990-92.
Mean and median payouts per large paid claim were roughly constant.
Jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs showed no trend over time.
The total cost of large malpractice claims was both stable and a small fraction (less than 1 percent) of total health care expenditures in Texas.
In short, as far as medical malpractice cases are concerned, for 15 years the Texas tort system has been remarkably stable.

The authors conclude as follows:

Malpractice premiums have risen sharply in Texas and many other states. But, at least in Texas, the sharp spikes in insurance prices reflect forces operating outside the tort system.
The medical malpractice system has many problems, but a crisis in claims, payouts and jury verdicts is not among them. Thus, the federal “solution” that Mr. Bush proposes is both overbroad and directed at the wrong problem.

Unfortunately, this is not an unusual approach for the Bush Administration to follow in enacting legislation, as reflected by this legislation.