One Texas doctor who doesn't know causal correlation — do Big Media check on this?

Dr. Howard Marcus, lying with statistics.
(Somebody alert Mark Twain.)

Note even if it were a tapeworm and bit him in the stomach. (He's an internist, hence the riff on the old joke.)

From a news release:

The Texas Medical Board licensed a record 3,994 new physicians  for the fiscal year that ended last month. 

The board licensed 400 more doctors this year than last, said Austin internist Howard Marcus, M.D, chairman of Texas Alliance For Patient Access. 

“The number of new physicians applying for a Texas license also reached an all-time high,” said Dr. Marcus, “tallying 12% more than last year’s previous record high,” he said. 

The state’s fiscal year begins in September and ends in August. Nearly every month was a record setter. September, the first month of the fiscal year, was the only month that did not produce a record number of new applications for that given month, said Marcus. 

Texas has averaged licensing 3,254 new physicians each year since the passage of lawsuit reforms 11 years ago.

“The state medical board is now licensing twice as many doctors per year than in the medical crisis years before lawsuit reforms were enacted,” said Marcus.

Tort "reform" had nothing to do with that, at least nothing that's provable. (It also didn't reduce doctors' insurance rates that much.)

Statistical correlation does not imply causal correlation. Between that, loose p-values on medical research and other things, this is why I sometimes hesitate to call doctors "scientists." Marcus needs to read XKCD if he cares, which he doesn't, as I note below.

What probably did cause the increase?

Uhh, Texas population growth?

Texas' population was 22.1 million in 2003. It's now about 26.7 million. Or 20 percent more than 11 years ago.

Of course, since Marcus has been writing columns for Texans for Lawsuit Reform since 2006, and the Texas Alliance for Patient Access is an Astroturf group, he's not exactly a disinterested person when it comes to implying causal correlation exists where it probably doesn't. (He's also been touting this new physician growth every year, meaning this con game is nothing new, and doing similar on things like out-of-state physician recruitment.)

Obama booed? No honeymoon with AMA! Or Daschle?

The American Medical Association’s annual convention attendees booed President Barack Obama, when, in his speech to them, he refused to promise them more tort reform.

Strange; FOB and former Obama HHS choice Tom Daschle, says more federal tort reform (didn’t we have a round already, under Clinton) has to be part of the equation on cutting healthcare costs.

So, is this a classic, almost too-transparent, good cop/bad cop situation? A real disagreement? Obama and Daschle not reading from the same playbook? On the outs?

Why you should NOT trust Dems in ‘Immunity 2.0’ bailout

Think “tort reform” in 1995; think GLB in 1999

Not only did 2/3 of House Dems for FOR Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999 (many Democratic cover-ups will point ONLY to the party-line Senate vote, while ignoring the House vote and the fact that the House reported it out of committee before the Senate, but also …

A narrow majority of Dems voted FOR The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in the House, with a substantial minority of Senate Dems going along — 69-30 overall, with a 26-16 split against by Democrats. However, such “stalwarts” as Reid, Dodd, Kerry and even Harkin and Kennedy all voted yes; Leahy, Feingold and (surprisingly) Joe Biden were among top no votes.

Hell, Dodd was even a cosponsor!

(On GLB, other House yes votes include Rangel, Patrick Kennedy, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Ackerman, David Bonior, both Udalls, Sandy Levin, Murtha, Oberstar and others. House roll call here)

In the House, supposedly progressive minority Democrats such as Shelia Jackson-Lee and Eddie Bernice Johnson were among the yes voters, along with Big Bill Richardson and Chuck Schumer (shock me again) among others.

And, you know who — Passive Pelosi™ of course voted yes.

And, you can’t even blame the Slickster for this one. He vetoed it and got overridden.

This was a fulcrum piece of legislation from Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America and the start of the conservative “tort reform” battle at the federal level, and Democrats couldn’t muster enough numbers to uphold a Clinton veto — one of just two vetoes of his that were overridden.

So, on Uncle Henry’s Used Derivatives Bailout, Passive Pelosi™ and Land-Swap Harry Reid will bit a bit, then roll over and play dead.

Andy, you know what?

So will about 98 percent of registered Democratic voters who are politically active.

Even where they have Green (or Socialist/Social Democratic) alternatives on the ballot for president, or even local Congressional races, you'll listen to Democrats' fear-mongering.

“What’s the Matter with Kansas” has nothing on this.

Sidebar: It’s “interesting” that Uncle Harry made his immunity request the same day Attorney General Mike Mukasey officially played the immunity card in the FISA/telecom fight.

Like father like son on Giuliani whining and tort reform

Rudy’s son Andrew is suing Duke University for being cut from its soccer team.

Young Andrew is claiming the cut has wrecked his shot at being a professional golfer, which means he is not only as much a whiner as the old man, he’s either as delusional or as much a liar — or both, they’re not mutually exclusive — as the old man:

Guliani's best finish was a tie for 36th at the Fighting Illini Invitational in Olympia Fields, Ill. His season competition average was 74.5, good for 12th best on the team.

Oh, and where will the GOP outcry about “tort reform” be on this?

A better idea than Texas GOP ‘malpractice reform’ …

Would be a doctor saying “I’m sorry” to a victimized patient. BEFORE the case gets to court.

The University of Michigan Health System says its lawsuits have dropped by 2/3 since starting a full-disclosure policy. At the University of Illinois system, a 50 percent drop.

Advocates argue that the new disclosure policies may reduce legal claims but bring a greater measure of equity by offering reasonable compensation to every injured patient.

Recent studies have found that one of every 100 hospital patients suffers negligent treatment, and that as many as 98,000 die each year as a result. But studies also show that as few as 30 percent of medical errors are disclosed to patients.

In the case that centers this story, the doctor apologized. The patient, who had retained a lawyer, did not sue, and accepted a $74,000 judgment. That’s far less than a malpractice verdict might have awarded, not to mention expenses for lawyers on both sides and an increase in malpractice premiums for the doctor.

This sounds like a no-brainer.

Just one problem:

The policies seem to work best at hospitals that are self-insured and that employ most or all of their staffs, limiting the number of parties at the table. Such is the case at the Veterans Health Administration, which pioneered the practice in the late 1980s at its hospital in Lexington, Ky., and now requires the disclosure of all adverse events

And Texas, in one of the stupider state laws in a state full of them, does not let doctors be employed by hospitals.

Yes, you read that right. They’re all independent practitioners.

As for the legal status of an apology, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama cosponsored a bill in 2005 to make apologies inadmissible in court. It died in committee. Gee, that was when … the GOP was in charge?

The story is a good read about how the “disclosure” movement has prompted other changes at many hospitals.