Malpractice insurance rates are not tied to malpractice award amounts? Unless rates were fixed by law and financially guaranteed by the Government, how on earth would that even be possible. Are you just a troll?
If the premiums were simply rising because of the amount of money given in a malpractice judgment, we would not see that. Therefore, malpractice premiums are not -- in any meaningful sense -- tied to malpractice award amounts. Typically, the gigantic spikes in premiums seen over the past couple of decades are attributed to other factors in the insurance industry, including the need to make up for investment losses and for losses from other sectors of insurance (i.e., market crashes + 9/11 were not kind to insurers).
There is a belief on the part of many people that massive, bank-breaking, out-of-control, $BIGNUM malpractice judgments are common and that this is the reason why premiums have skyrocketed.
This belief is not borne out by the facts, which are that malpractice awards increase, on average, about 3% more than inflation, and that even in states with "here's a nickel, sorry we killed your spouse"-type caps on judgments the premiums have continued to rise far out of proportion to the amounts of the judgments.