In a letter to Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Congressional Budget Office reports that tort reform could save about $11 billion in national health care costs in 2009, or about 0.5 percent of national health care spending.

This letter responds to your request for an updated analysis of the effects of proposals to limit costs related to medical malpractice (“tort reform”). Tort reform could affect costs for health care both directly and indirectly: directly, by lowering premiums for medical liability insurance; and indirectly, by reducing the use of diagnostic tests and other health care services when providers recommend those services principally to reduce their potential exposure to lawsuits. Because of mixed evidence about whether tort reform affects the utilization of health care services, past analyses by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have focused on the impact of tort reform on premiums for malpractice insurance. However, more recent research has provided additional evidence to suggest that lowering the cost of medical malpractice tends to reduce the use of health care services. CBO has updated its estimate of the budgetary effects of proposals for tort reform to reflect that new information.

Sen. Hatch issued a statement, “Tort Reform Key to Affordable Healthcare“: ““I think this response from the CBO confirms that there is a growing problem regarding the costs of health care lawsuits. In years past, the CBO mainly focused on the cost doctors’ malpractice insurance premiums and did not adequately address the tendency of doctors to use ‘defensive medicine,’ which does little to promote patient health and serves only to help doctors avoid being sued.”

• Deseret News, “CBO says Hatch is right, tort reform could save $11 billion“
• Washington Post, “CBO: Medical Malpractice Reforms Could Save Up to $54 Billion“
• American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons, “Congressional Budget Office Confirms Medical Liability Reform Will Save Billions“
• Fox News, “Tort Reform Reduces Federal Deficit, Congressional Analysts Say“

A letter to the editor from Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in today’s Washington Post, “A Gift to Energy Independence“:

The Nov. 13 editorial “Drilling in Utah” overreached with a headline that called President Bush‘s decision to authorize the sale of oil and gas leases on 360,000 acres in Utah “one last gift to the oil and gas industry.”

It would be more accurate to characterize the president’s decision as a step toward energy independence. By opening up Utah land for environmentally responsible oil and gas exploration, the Bush administration is sending a clear signal that we must act to increase the nation’s domestic oil supply.

To place Utah lands off-limits for such exploration would not only cost jobs and be bad for the economy, it would also show we are not serious about weaning the nation off its dangerous dependence on foreign oil. We cannot afford to keep spending $700 billion every year to buy oil from foreign governments, many of which are not our friends and whose principles are antithetical to those of freedom-loving people around the world.

Developing alternative energy sources, as the editorial correctly points out, is a vital part of solving the energy crisis. I’m a strong advocate for solar, wind, geothermal and other energy alternatives. But that will take time. The last time I checked, 97 percent of our planes, trains, ships and automobiles ran on oil.

Our nation needs to ramp up efforts to increase production of domestic oil and alternative energy sources. The Bush administration recognizes that, and I applaud the president for his foresight and leadership on the issue.

The Post’s editorial to which Senator Hatch is responding is here. The Post’s editorial page is generally balanced and thoughtful on major policy issues facing the country, but on energy and climate change, the editorials tend toward rigidly ideological, pushing the anti-market, anti-fossil fuels agenda of the environmental left. “One last gift to the oil and gas industry?” That’s not thinking, that’s sloganeering.

Yesterday several leading Senators held a press conference in the Capitol with business leaders to warn about the consequences of the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). The Senators who participated (including Sens. Hatch, Enzi, Ensign and Senate Republican Leader McConnell) highlighted some of the lesser known provisions in the bill, such as binding arbitration.

Senator Hatch declared the EFCA ,: “… one of the most heinous pieces of legislation in history,” Hatch also pointed out one of the unfortunate realities of card check systems , i.e “These union organizers will keep coming back until you sign the card. Some people just sign the card to get rid of them.”

Senator Enzi explained that EFCA would lead to federally appointed arbitrators actually setting  wages, pension and health care benefits, work hours and other terms. The Senator said:

“If we adopt this bill, labor and management will no longer negotiate most new contracts and third parties will decide all the important issues such as pay, hours, benefits and working conditions.”

Under EFCA,  bureaucrats from Washington would have unchecked power to impose a two-year binding contract, one that would not even allow the employees to ratify it or approve its terms. Government knows best?  Not when it comes to running your own business. 

In the FISA debate, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has been a clear and consistent speaker on the importance of providing immunity to telecommunications companies that assisted in surveillance of foreign communications. His remarks today on the Senate floor made the case in as straight-forward of way as we’ve seen, and he also punched holes in the more conspiratorial arguments that comes from the left.

From his prepared remarks:

It’s very simple – Congress should not condone oversight through litigation. The lawsuits seize on the President’s brief comments about the existence of a limited program to go on a fishing expedition of NSA activities. But this is really worse than a fishing expedition; this is draining the Loch Ness to find a monster. Sometimes what you are looking for just doesn’t exist. Yet we consistently hear as justification for the apparent paranoia that some wiretaps were warrantless. But lest we forget, the 4th Amendment does not proscribe warrantless searches, it proscribes unreasonable searches.

The fact is the President created an early warning system to prevent future attacks;
essentially a terrorist smoke detector. But rather than appreciate the protection it offered,
critics rushed to pull out the batteries so that it couldn’t work. My feelings of admiration
and respect for the companies who did their part to defend America are well known. As
I’ve said in the past, any company who assisted us following the attacks of 9/11 deserves
a round of applause and a helping hand, not a slap in the face and a kick to the gut.

As an antidote to the pyretic claims about the police state, the Senator remarks:

In the over 40 outstanding civil lawsuits, is there any proof that any litigant was specifically targeted by the government? Can any of the plaintiffs show that they are “aggrieved persons” under the definition of FISA? The answer to both questions is no. Rather, many of the lawsuits utilize the following logic: I have long distance service, so I am going to sue because I think you listened to my calls. Even though they have no proof; even though the government has more important things to do than listen to their random phone calls, they push on in their desire to justify their view of self importance and irrational belief in government conspiracy. I don’t want to bruise anyone’s ego, but if Al Qaeda is not on your speed dial the government is probably not interested in you.

And in the litigation that follows, either intelligence and national security secrets are revealed, or the companies cannot defend themselves.

A very good summary of the case for immunity and passage of H.R. 6304. Thanks, Senator.