Honestly, I have always figured they did. My thinking was that it is basic economics. Decrease the upside risk and premiums will come down.
Now, I’m not so sure. Certainly, at a glance, a cap on noneconomic damages appears to be correlated with keeping health care malpractice premiums down. But the data just does not back that up. Take a look at the analysis in Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund 701 N.W.2d 440 (Wis. 2005) where the court breaks down the “caps equal higher premiums” argument.
Even more to the macro picture is whether a cap decreases medical costs. That is the endgame, right? Malpractice caps can’t be about just lining the pockets of our highest paid professionals. (How would that look on a bumper sticker?)