[dahdum]

Aren't a lot of these costs baked into all services due to malpractice insurance itself? If these doctors could be sued by some of their patients (the families), they still need to cover the cost of that insurance.

Beyond that, once defensive medicine is the status quo, why would they make a choice to not order their usual defensive panels? They aren't paying for them themselves.

[mrfredward]

True, but here's a point the NYT missed: caps on malpractice claims don't have to change how doctors practice medicine to reduce costs. By capping liability, they should make malpractice insurance cheaper and thus reduce the cost of providing care.

[dragonwriter]

Caps on malpractice claims exist in numerous jurisdictions, and studies have shown them to have no discernable effect on either total healthcare costs or even specifically on malpractice insurance costs.

[briandear]

I am sorry but you are just completely wrong. Exactly the opposite of what you said is true:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701901/

“In summary, there exists considerable evidence that medical malpractice reform measures reduce medical malpractice awards and also the losses incurred by medical malpractice insurance companies.”

[Digory]

Reduced Awards =! Reduced Premiums or Costs

Texas seems to have set caps so low that it has reduced premiums for doctors. But "making malpractice cheaper" isn't much of a policy goal.

Nationally,'tort reform' caps have had mixed results. "...better-designed studies show that damages caps reduce liability insurance premiums. The effects of damages caps on defensive medicine, physicians’ location decisions, and the cost of health care to consumers are less clear." [0]

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690332/