I wrote about this in detail before, I don't want to keep explaining it. Tort reform is 1 piece of malpractice reform. Tort reform refers specifically on limiting damages awarded at trial. Studies show that it has brought down costs some in states that have tort limits. Certainly not enough to have a large impact, that is true. Remember, it was the greedy trial lawyers who pushed up awards because they make a %.
We need complete MALPRACTICE reform. That includes: reducing overall lawsuits, incentives for lawyers only to take good cases, reasonable limits on settlements & awards, judicial or arbitrator pre-screenings to throw out junk lawsuits, plaintiff pays legal fees if determined a junk lawsuit, limiting the # of defendents named in a suit. All of these measures will have a trickle down effect to limiting defensive medicine practices by docs and hospitals throughout the nation, that is the real cost savings. Limit lawsuits to legitimate cases of neglegence. Too often lawyers take questionable cases because they know hospitals and large groups will settle. Every time someone is named in a suit, they pay legal defense fees and miss work for depositions, court, meetings with lawyers, etc. Any time a doctor is named in a suit, it is on their permanent record and regardless of outcome, their rates increase! The whole system together is very costly.
Adonis, you are looking at this through a microscope rather than seeing the whole field. For the last 10 yrs, docs have been pleading for malpractice reform because their insurance costs went up (but wages stayed stagnant).
In adonis' beloved European healthcare systems, they have a fraction of the legal costs and a fraction of the overall lawsuits (settlement or jury judgements). Countries with socialized medicine realize they need to limit excessive legal costs.