The article challenges the rationale behind Texas's 2003 tort reform law, H.B. 4, arguing that the law was based on inaccurate assertions about a medical malpractice crisis and failed to achieve its intended goals of reducing healthcare costs or improving physician supply. The analysis demonstrates that the insurance premium spike preceding the reform was not driven by litigation trends but by broader market dynamics. The reform ultimately benefited insurers and physicians at the expense of injured patients, weakening patient safety incentives without addressing healthcare cost growth.
Peck et al. (2019) studied this question.