Insurance

California caps or Proposition 103? Lawyers, doctors debate what really brought malpractice insurance rates down

January 19, 2003  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">Charleston Gazette</p> <p>A California consumer group says insurance reform, not lawsuit caps, is responsible for a decline in the total amount state doctors paid in malpractice premiums.</p>

Op-ed: In defense of defensive medicine

January 17, 2003  ·  Jamie Court

<p class="source">The San Diego Union-Tribune</p> <p>Let's lower auto insurance premiums by stopping lawsuits against drunk drivers, not by preventing drunk driving. This is the logic by which President Bush proposes to lower the medical malpractice premiums that doctors pay.</p>

MALPRACTICE: BUSH ANNOUNCES PLAN TO CAP JURY AWARDS, LIMIT LAWSUITS

January 17, 2003  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">American Health Line</p> <p>An analysis conducted by the California-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights found that malpractice premiums in the state increased 175% between 1975 and 1985, but dropped 8% between 1988 and 2000, after the insurance laws were alter</p>

Editorial – Insurance reform is real answer

January 17, 2003  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">The Charleston Gazette</p> <p>Doctors would have legislators and others believe that this can all be attributed to malpractice tort changes. They conveniently forget that California passed Proposition 103 in 1988. That measure instituted insurance reform, not tort reform.</p>

Bush Enters Fray Over Malpractice

January 17, 2003  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">The New York Times</p> <p>But many experts cite other factors, including poor investment returns and the insurers' own business practices, for making significant contributions to the premium increases.</p>

Bush Renews Call For Malpractice Caps

January 16, 2003  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">CBS TV Evening News</p> <p>Consumer groups are also blasting the Bush plan, saying the insurance industry is to blame for raising premiums in the first place.</p>

Insurance Regulation, Not Malpractice Caps, Stabilize Doctors’ Premiums

January 16, 2003  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<!-- excerpt --><p>FTCR compares the impact of the 1988 insurance reform (Proposition 103) on malpractice premiums, on the one hand, and the effect of 1975 restrictions on victims' recovery of non-economic damages (the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, or MICRA), on</p>

Cheap car cover for LA drivers

January 15, 2003  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">Insurance Day</p> <p>As of this month, more low-income Los Angeles and San Francisco residents will qualify for cheap, bare-bones automobile insurance, and on March 1 the cost will drop even more.</p>

Five Dangerous Myths About California’s Medical Malpractice Restrictions

January 15, 2003  ·  Harvey Rosenfield

<!-- excerpt --><p>California's system of capping injured patients' non-economic damages has not saved doctor's money, but it has been harmful and costly to patients.</p>

Health Casts

January 13, 2003  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<h3>Is the time right in California to institute a prior approval system for health premium increases?</h3><p class="source">Los Angeles Business Journal</p> <p>The Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights thinks the time right in California to institute a prior approval system for health premium increases.</p>

Low-cost car insurance expands

January 12, 2003  ·  Doug Heller

<p class="source">The San Francisco Chronicle</p> <p>Starting this year, more low-income San Francisco and Los Angeles residents will qualify for cheap, bare-bones auto insurance, and on March 1, the price will fall even further.</p>

Johnston denies conflict

January 10, 2003  ·  Consumer Watchdog

<p class="source">The Stockton Record</p> <p>State Sen.-turned-lobbyist Patrick Johnston says his clients gained nothing from his unpaid role helping Gov. Gray Davis hammer out a plan to bridge the $35 billion budget gap.</p>