> Sure is. This is a huge issue and IMO the issue to solve. But sadly, no candidate is really digging into why costs are so much higher outside of administrative overhead (which is real, but eliminating it doesn't solve the problem).

Has anyone estimated the impact of costly lawsuits->higher professional insurance costs->higher prices->higher medical insurance prices vicious cycle ?

> Specifically, physician salaries plus diagnostic tests comprise 4.04% of GDP in the US, compared to only 2.3% in the UK.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429212...

If you read more, I believe diagnostic testing comes out to 0.5% of GDP in the UK vs. 2% of GDP in the US, a far bigger effect than the difference in salaries.

So yes, there is some indication that lawsuits can lead to more tests and thus wildly higher testing costs.

I wonder if this is also leading to doctors to favoring newer medications that should be "the best" versus cheaper generics that would be more cost effective for a particular ailment.

Speaking of which, the way drug approvals and patents work also increases costs, and there are perhaps some small tweaks like permitting foreign first-world drug approvals to count in the US as well that might also help keep a lid on costs.

Yes, but it's mostly not a huge issue in terms of overall costs. Many states already cap med-mal liabilities.

Currently, Virginia is capped at $2.4 million. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter21.1/se...

Sounds like a lot on first glance, but if you're young and lose a lifetime of income, or need a lifetime of assistance/follow-on care, due to negligence, it's a drop in the bucket.

That's a huge talking point among the right, yes.

That is the rational for ‘tort reform’, to make these numbers more predictable.

>>The US government does spend huge sums of money on healthcare. >Medicare and Medicaid are 21% and 16%

Ok, I misspoke there, but the US government does not spend anything on you if you don't qualify for one of these two programs.