A few days ago I put my amateur free market economist hat on, and recommended that everyone listen to a Budweiser commercial. Following a tip from the medskool blog, I passed on news that Texas is dealing with a sudden influx of doctors and it was possible this was the result of tort reform.
In my view, this is just common sense. People will tend to gravitate toward work where it gets easier rather than harder. Living under the threat of lawsuits that you are convinced may be used against you even when you do a good job is a hard thing. Thus, doctors are, all things being equal, going to prefer being doctors in a place where they are protected from such lawsuits. I would confidently predict this was happening even if nothing had been reported.
But, we are not all comfortable with a priori economics. People want a lot of evidence before they agree to a general principle.

Well, here’s some evidence of the same economic forces working in the opposite direction. According to alternet, there are a growing number of vacancies in jobs requiring mammogram reading. Even though mammograms are lifesaving and there is a high demand for such readers it is still hard to find them. Not only are positions vacant, but also teaching fellowships are going unused. Finally, mammogram facilities are closing.
In short, radiologists are afraid of being sued, and there’s evidence that they have more reason to worry than providers in other areas of medicine.
Missed breast cancer is the most common basis for medical malpractice lawsuits in the United States, according to the Physician Insurers Association of America, a trade group of medical malpractice insurance carriers.
And it’s among the most expensive kind of malpractice cases. In a seven-year period ending in 2002, PIAA members spent almost $200 million on breast cancer malpractice cases. That was $30 million more than was spent during the previous six years.
But, experts say, the problem is not inept radiologists, although there are certainly some of those.
Instead, the problem is a misconception about the effectiveness of mammography.
The story goes on to explain how each woman is different and detecting anomalies is extremely tricky.
So, while in Texas tort reform means more doctors coming to serve Texans. In the mammography practice, high probabilities of an unavoidable lawsuit mean fewer doctors in that area.

8 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 17, 2007 at 3:23 am
More Anecdotal evidence that medmal crisis is causing shortages « Keane Insurance Group
[...] 17, 2007 in costs for patients, Ohio I’ve put on my amateur economist hat before and predicted that out of control medical malpractice lawsuits will result in fewer doctors. [...]
July 30, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Getting defensive in medicine and in court « Keane Insurance Group
[...] concerns–leaving patients worse off than they would be if medmal risks were not so great. Mammogram readers are just one example of this trend. Spreading the idea that doctors are fair game simply because they have agreed to practice risky [...]
August 6, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Bloggers give advice for mammograms. « Keane Insurance Group
[...] of course, but I think it would be good to remind readers that medical malpractice costs seem to be causing a shortage of mammogram readers. Just last week another story was published, “Women Furious Over Long Lines For Breast Cancer [...]
October 6, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Kentucky is getting behind « Keane Insurance Group
[...] there are plenty of other cases of shortages (mammogram readers, for example) where we have direct evidence of liability worries causing shortages. It is hard to [...]
November 27, 2007 at 2:51 am
1% of what? (It’s about the doctor, stupid) « Keane Insurance Group
[...] malpractic are not distributed evenly throughout the system. They are paid by doctors. In fact, there are whole areas of medicine that are disappearing due to medmal rates. And this means that one very important part of “the medical system”–namely, the [...]
December 18, 2007 at 2:57 am
So what do you do when the judge gives your accuser candy in front of the jury? « Keane Insurance Group
[...] demoralizing for them anyway, and (2) monetarily doctors do lose enough that, in some specialties, like mammograms for instance, we are experiencing [...]
February 7, 2008 at 3:53 am
How transparency can backfire « Keane Insurance Group
[...] helps us understand how problematic unlimited medmal liability can be. High-risk specialties (like mammogram readers, for example) are tending to disappear due to the legal costs. Going after doctors who [...]
April 15, 2008 at 2:57 pm
The eye of the beholder « Keane Insurance Group
[...] 15, 2008 in shortages Last summer, I pointed out reports of a shortage of mammogram readers. Reading the image one gets from such a machine is quite difficult. Since reading it wrong will [...]