Medical Malpractice

Interesting podcast, but I was a bit disappointed at the way Prof. Tabarrok dodged your question about why doctors don't respond to contested judicial elections by counterbalancing the contributions of the plaintiff's bar. He changed the subject to national pharmaceutical companies, and explained that they cannot make contributions in every county in the nation.

Doctors, however, are local, are wealthier than lawyers, and are also more numerous than plaintiff's lawyers, who represent a relatively small fraction of all lawyers. They are also politically more popular than lawyers. They have every incentive to participate in these elections and should wield more influence than the "trial lawyers."

In fact, physicians are very politically influential, and have managed to get tort reform, and medical malpractice reform, legislation passed in many states. I do not think that Prof. Tabarrok's political explanations hold water. The clout of those opposed to large jury awards (medical providers and hospitals, large corporations, insurance companies) is far greater than that of proponents (essentially, just plaintiffs' lawyers).

I agree that the increasing hospitality of the courts to large tort awards in the last few decades is driven by social and economic forces rather than by an evolution of purely legal doctrine, but I have not yet seen any convincing explanations of what those forces might be.

I've never trusted prescription drugs much–the bottom line fuels the drug companies more than a desire to create useful drugs

I’ll back again for sure, thanks for great article