Bologna for Breakfast

Can anyone make heads or tails of this Herald story on malpractice premiums for doctors, and whether or not tort caps have had any effect on reducing rates? I can't.

Here is AP reporter David Royce:

Four years ago, many Florida doctors threatened to quit their practices because their malpractice insurance premiums were spiraling out of control.

After a contentious fight between doctors' and lawyers' groups, the Legislature responded by limiting the amounts malpractice victims can win in lawsuits -- about $500,000 per doctor in most cases. Voters changed the state constitution to cap how much victims' lawyers can get paid in contingency fees: 30 percent of the first $250,000 won (a maximum of $75,000) and 10 percent above that.

And while some contend that unfairly penalized victims and made it more difficult for them to find attorneys, the measures seem to have helped stabilize and even reduce the malpractice premiums paid by the state's doctors. Rates dropped 3 percent on average last year, the state Office of Insurance Regulation reported.

And the measures appear to have helped decrease insurers' losses, which have fallen from more than $700 million statewide in 2003 to just over $300 million last year, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

In a report in August, Florida's Office of Insurance Regulation noted the declining losses and concluded that award caps are at least part of the reason.

But many doctors say their rates haven't really dropped that much. An 8 percent decrease, when rates doubled over a couple years in the early 2000s, is barely noticeable, many say.

So rates have dropped 3 percent. Is that significant? Apparently not. Is it causally related to the malpractice caps? Who knows:

Lawyers who represent malpractice victims also question whether doctors really have gotten much relief.

''Most of what you're seeing is part of the typical insurance cycle,'' said Debra Henley, deputy executive director of the Florida Justice Association, a trial bar group. ``The insurance companies are the only winners. The patients have had significant restrictions on their rights; the doctors haven't seen the savings.''

So which is it? Don't ask David Royce:

Some experts say it takes years for medical malpractice cases to get to trial, so it's too early to conclude that the reduction in claims is due to the damage caps.

Lawyers who represent malpractice victims argue that the caps are contributing to fewer claims, but as part of a bigger pattern. They say claims have been going down for years also because of increasing barriers, including more difficult rules on expert witness testimony.

Industry observers say it's not really clear. Jay Wolfson, a University of South Florida professor of public health and medicine, said there isn't enough data.

Complicating the issue further is that other states' malpractice rates have also gone down, although many states have also made it harder for plaintiffs to win malpractice lawsuits.

So in other words, my story is a bunch of bologney and I shouldn't have written it. When I wrote in the opening paragraph that "the measures seem to have helped stabilize and even reduce the malpractice premiums," it turns out that I didn't have enough data and I haven't done the leg work to reach a firm conclusion. Plus other states' malpractice rates are going down, though it is unclear whether or not those sames states have enacted similar tort reform.

Is that clear enough?