MICRAscope: RAND's methodical inspection of California's tort reform law

A recent study that looks at MICRA's noneconomic damages cap is garnering a lot of attention.

By Tanya Albert, AMNews staff. Nov. 8, 2004.

Perhaps you've seen this statistic from a study released this summer: California's $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages resulted in 30% less being paid out in medical liability cases that went to trial from 1991 to 1995.

If you haven't yet heard politicians reference the report that the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Institute for Civil Justice put forward in July, you likely will soon enough.

Since the report's release, Vice President Dick Cheney has cited the study as proof that tort reform works. The Bush administration is a staunch supporter of the American Medical Association's call for a nationwide $250,000 cap -- like the one in California -- on pain and suffering awards in medical liability cases as a way to help stabilize professional liability insurance rates. But trial lawyers, too, have cited statistics from the nearly 80-page report to support their belief that capping noneconomic damages is not the way to solve the insurance problems that physicians are facing. Trial lawyers believe better insurance regulations are needed to control doctors' premiums. They also argue that caps are unfair to injured patients and say the study bolsters their argument that caps disproportionately affect women, children and the elderly.

Study authors, whose aim was to let the facts speak for themselves, said they knew the report would get some attention. But they've been surprised at just how much it has received.

"It says something about the importance of this debate," said Nicholas M. Pace, the project's lead researcher. "It says there is a need for this research. I suspect everyone wants a system that is fair and works well."