
It would if malpractice and "defensive medicine" were the main
factors in explaining spiralling US health care costs, but they aren't.

Although Gary is correct in noting that malpractice-related problems are
greater in the US than Canada, they by no means account for the overall
difference in health care costs.  (They do account for a somewhat larger
portion of the difference in physicians' gross income in the two countries.)

Some facts.  Malpractice insurance and awards account for less than 1% of
total health care costs in the US.  In 1991, according to a survey of 
physicians conducted by a national medical journal physicians averaged
paying 3.7% of their practice receipts in malpractice insurance.  
Malpractice insurance premiums and malpractice awards peaked in 1985;
they've declined significantly since then.  At the same time, health
care costs have increased more than any period in history.

As far as "defensive medicine" is concerned, the AMA estimates that its
total impact is about $7 billion per year.  That's about 8% of the total
current INCREASE in health care costs -- and the estimate is from a group
that could be expected to overestimate the impacts of defensive medicine
on health care.

As small a problem as this is in the overall scheme of things, however,
Clinton has been on record for a long time favoring an indemnification
of MD's against malpractice suits if they follow procedures set by their
specialties.  This would eliminate most, if not all frivolous suits
while retaining the ability to sue for true malpractice.

jsh