In addition to our regular blogging and our featured discussions, we've decided to introduce a new "POL Columns" feature to Point of Law. POL Columns will be more in-depth pieces, varying in length from longer op-eds to magazine-type features. Authors will include our regular blog contributors as well as other special guests, including those from our broader contributors list. We will still of course have some lengthy posts here in the Forum. Our posts here will be, in typical blog fashion, more informal and often written in response to breaking news or other opinion on the blogosphere. In contrast, POL Columns will be a bit more polished and of broader interest and application -- in some instances, the authors may wish to run the entries elsewhere in an abridged, lengthened, or otherwise varying format.
Our friend Ted Frank kicks off POL Columns today with his column "Malpractice Myths." In this satiric piece, Ted engages in a bit of a thought experiment to deconstruct the anti-tort-reform claims of the trial bar and its mouthpieces: i.e., the contention that escalating medical malpractice premiums are due to insurance company mismanagement and/or collusion rather than underlying litigation costs. Were that claim true, there's surely a profit opportunity to be had by entering the market with a new, properly managed, more competitive malpractice insurer. Ted challenges Trial Lawyers, Inc. to put its money where its mouth is and enter the malpractice insurance market it claims to understand so well. Read it all here.
As an example of how our regular blog entries and POL Columns will differ, compare Ted's column with our editor's rejoinder to yesterday's New York Times piece on medical malpractice, posted here earlier today. Walter's posting is more a specific analysis of the Times article, whereas Ted's column mentions the Times piece in the context of a broader portrait of the medical malpractice myths repeatedly hacked by reform opponents.