«[T] he record and available data fail to establish a legitimate relationship between» the cap and lower
medical malpractice insurance premiums because insurers do not pass savings onto doctors.
He has said that «there is too much money on the table» in medical malpractice cases, which, he contends, drives up the cost
of malpractice insurance premiums and health care overall.
Savings from caps have led to huge insurance industry profits, which «the insurance industry should pass... onto Florida physicians in the form of
reduced malpractice insurance premiums, and it should no longer be necessary to continue punishing those most seriously injured by medical negligence by limiting their noneconomic recovery to a fixed, arbitrary amount.»
The underlying policy is that not having to defend against frivolous lawsuits will translate into suppressing the cost of medical malpractice litigation, which would in turn lower the cost of the medical
malpractice insurance premiums charged to healthcare providers and so on up the chain.
Researchers at the University of Texas, the University of Illinois and the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that rapid changes in
malpractice insurance premiums simply reflect insurance market dynamics, largely disconnected from malpractice payments.
Based on the available evidence from nearly 10 years of experience with caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases in Wisconsin and other states, it is not reasonable to conclude that the $ 350,000 cap has its intended effect of reducing
medical malpractice insurance premiums.
[T] here are other explanations for the dramatic rise in medical
malpractice insurance premiums.»
There is little correlation between medical malpractice payouts and
malpractice insurance premiums.