Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 2/2009

01-02-2009 | Symposium: Clinical Risk and Judicial Reasoning

A Modified No-fault Malpractice System Can Resolve Multiple Healthcare System Deficiencies

Authors: Jeffrey J. Segal, MD, FACS, Michael Sacopulos, JD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 2/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Medical professional liability in the United States, as measured by total premiums paid by physicians and healthcare facilities, costs approximately $30 billion a year in direct expenses, less than 2% of the entire annual healthcare expenditures. Only a fraction of those dollars reach patients who are negligently injured. Nonetheless, the tort system has far-reaching effects that create substantial indirect costs. Medical malpractice litigation is pervasive and physicians practice defensively to avoid being named in a suit. Those extra expenditures provide little value to patients. Despite an elaborate existing tort system, patient safety remains a vexing problem. Many injured patients are denied access to timely, reasonable remedies. We propose a no-fault system supplemented by a variation of the traditional tort system whereby physicians are incentivized to follow evidence-based guidelines. The proposed system would guarantee a substantial decrease in, but not elimination of, litigation. The system would lower professional liability premiums. Injured patients would ordinarily be compensated with no-fault disability and life insurance proceeds. To the extent individual physicians pose a recurrent danger, their care would be reviewed on an administrative level. Savings would be invested in health information technology and purchase of insurance coverage for the uninsured. We propose a financial model based on publicly accessible sources.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference American Medical Association. Medical liability reform—now! A compendium of facts supporting medical liability reform and debunking arguments against reform. Available at: www.ama-assn.org/go/mlrnow. Accessed October 5, 2007. American Medical Association. Medical liability reform—now! A compendium of facts supporting medical liability reform and debunking arguments against reform. Available at: www.​ama-assn.​org/​go/​mlrnow. Accessed October 5, 2007.
3.
go back to reference Bismark M, Dauer E. Motivations for medico-legal action; lessons from New Zealand. J Leg Med. 2006;27:55–70.PubMedCrossRef Bismark M, Dauer E. Motivations for medico-legal action; lessons from New Zealand. J Leg Med. 2006;27:55–70.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Fisher E, Wennberg D, Stukel T, Gottlieb D, Lucas F, Pinder E. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:288–298.PubMed Fisher E, Wennberg D, Stukel T, Gottlieb D, Lucas F, Pinder E. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:288–298.PubMed
9.
go back to reference LAMMICO rates stable as discount plan starts. Crittenden’s Medical Insurance News. April 18, 2005:7. LAMMICO rates stable as discount plan starts. Crittenden’s Medical Insurance News. April 18, 2005:7.
10.
go back to reference Mello M, Studdert D. The medical malpractice system: structure and performance. In: Sage W, Kersh R, eds. Medical Malpractice and the US Health Care System. 1st Ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2006:13. Mello M, Studdert D. The medical malpractice system: structure and performance. In: Sage W, Kersh R, eds. Medical Malpractice and the US Health Care System. 1st Ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2006:13.
12.
go back to reference Saxton J. Liability for medical malpractice: issues and evidence, a joint economic study. Vice Chairman Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Joint Economic Committee, US Congress; May 2003. Saxton J. Liability for medical malpractice: issues and evidence, a joint economic study. Vice Chairman Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Joint Economic Committee, US Congress; May 2003.
13.
go back to reference Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, Clement C, Lesiuk H, Laupacis A, McKnight RD, Verbeek R, Brison R, Cass D, Eisenhauer ME, Greenberg G, Worthington J. Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet. 2001;357:1391–1396.PubMedCrossRef Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, Clement C, Lesiuk H, Laupacis A, McKnight RD, Verbeek R, Brison R, Cass D, Eisenhauer ME, Greenberg G, Worthington J. Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet. 2001;357:1391–1396.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Yoon C, Puopolo AL, Brennan TA. Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2024–2033.PubMedCrossRef Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Yoon C, Puopolo AL, Brennan TA. Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2024–2033.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Studdert DM, Mello MM, Sage WM, DesRoches CM, Peugh J, Zapert K, Brennan TA. Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA. 2005;293:2609–2617.PubMedCrossRef Studdert DM, Mello MM, Sage WM, DesRoches CM, Peugh J, Zapert K, Brennan TA. Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA. 2005;293:2609–2617.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A Modified No-fault Malpractice System Can Resolve Multiple Healthcare System Deficiencies
Authors
Jeffrey J. Segal, MD, FACS
Michael Sacopulos, JD
Publication date
01-02-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 2/2009
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0577-9

Other articles of this Issue 2/2009

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 2/2009 Go to the issue

Symposium: Clinical Risk and Judicial Reasoning

Beyond Informed Consent: Educating the Patient

Symposium: Clinical Risk and Judicial Reasoning

Apologies and Medical Error