As much as I think that malpractice reform is necessary, I have been skeptical of the need for national legislation. Now I think I’m outright opposed to national legislation. My view had been that states have adequate incentives to get their laws right, largely because the consequences of their getting it wrong were largely borne by them. Michael Greve adds an additional consideration: “[E]xperimentation is quite probably preferable to a federal ‘reform’ that might get it wrong, rob the reform states of their just rewards, and discourage laggard states from experimenting with their own, possibly more effective reforms” (emphasis added). Why would we want to keep states from reaping the benefits of having a relatively healthy politics?