Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Journal of Health Economics and Management
Published in: International Journal of Health Economics and Management 1/2017

01-03-2017 | Short Paper

Do tort reforms impact the incidence of birth by cesarean section? A reassessment

Authors: Javier Cano-Urbina, Daniel Montanera

Published in: International Journal of Health Economics and Management | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Investigations into the existence and impact of defensive medicine in obstetrics have produced mixed and often conflicting implications. The most widely-cited and accepted results in this literature find that less severe malpractice environments cause an increase in the use of cesarean section. This has been interpreted as “offensive medicine”; taking advantage of lenient malpractice environments by providing unnecessary services in order to raise revenue. In this article we show that an assumption concerning births with an unknown method of delivery, which is not explicitly stated in the literature, is pivotal in obtaining these results. Using data on tort reforms and birth outcomes from 1989 to 2001 in 24 US states, we show that for the 98.4% of births with a confirmed method of delivery, the estimated effects of tort reform on C-section rates are insignificant. Therefore, without this assumption, there is little evidence to support an interpretation of offensive medicine.
Footnotes
1
The authors would like to thank Janet Currie and W. Bentley MacLeod for their assistance in conducting the replication of their study, as well as for their helpful suggestions and comments.
 
2
The average amounts of the noneconomic-damages caps and of the punitive-damages caps are excluded from the summary statistics because they are not included in the regressions. Matching CM’s sample means for these variables would require following their method for deflating and imputing the amounts, which was not attempted in this study.
 
3
The tort reform variables were generated according to the exact coding used in CM. The authors thank Janet Currie and W. Bentley MacLeod for making their code available.
 
4
Frakes (2012) also suggests the true effect is smaller than CM’s estimate.
 
5
Assuming that data was recorded correctly in all sample states during subsequent years, this specification should determine the impact of the institutional delay in data collection on CM’s parameter estimates. The results indicate that, besides the magnitude of coefficient estimates, the institutional delay does not appear to drive much of CM’s findings.
 
6
CM indicate that their results were robust to the systematic exclusion of large states, but based on the third column of Table 3, this does not hold for the replication sample.
 
Literature
Avraham, R., & Schanzenbach, M. (2015). The impact of tort reform on intensity of treatment: Evidence from heart patients. Journal of Health Economics, 39, 273–288.CrossRefPubMed
Baldwin, L. M., Hart, L. G., Lloyd, M., Fordyce, M., & Rosenblatt, R. A. (1995). Defensive medicine and obstetrics. Journal of the American Medical Association, 274(20), 1606–1610.CrossRefPubMed
Cano-Urbina, J., & Montanera, D. (2016). The differential effects of malpractice reform: Defensive medicine in obstetrics, Working Paper
Chen, B. K., & Yang, C. Y. (2014). Increased perception of malpractice liability and the practice of defensive medicine. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11(3), 446–476.CrossRef
Currie, J., & MacLeod, W. B. (2008). First do no harm? Tort reforms and birth outcomes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2), 795–830.CrossRef
Dubay, L., Kaestner, R., & Waidmann, T. (1999). The impact of malpractice fears on cesarean section rates. Journal of Health Economics, 18(4), 491–522.CrossRefPubMed
Dubay, L., Kaestner, R., & Waidmann, T. (2001). Medical malpractice liability and its effect on prenatal care utilization and infant health. Journal of Health Economics, 20, 591–611.CrossRefPubMed
Frakes, M. (2012). Defensive medicine and obstetric practices. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9(3), 457–481.CrossRef
Grant, D., & McInnes, M. M. (2004). Malpractice experience and the incidence of cesarean delivery: A physician-level longitudinal analysis. Inquiry, 41(2), 170–188.PubMed
Kessler, D., & McClellan, M. (1996). Do doctors practice defensive medicine? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(2), 353–390.CrossRef
Kim, B. (2007). The impact of malpractice risk on the use of obstetrics procedures. The Journal of Legal Studies, 36(S2), S79–S119.CrossRef
Lieber, E. M. J. (2014). Medical malpractice reform, the supply of physicians, and adverse selection. Journal of Law and Economics, 57(2), 501–527.CrossRef
Localio, A. R., Lawthers, A. G., Bengston, J. M., Hebert, L. E., Weaver, S. L., Brennan, T. A., et al. (1993). Relationship between malpractice claims and cesarean delivery. Journal of the American Medical Association, 269(3), 366–373.CrossRefPubMed
National Center for Health Statistics. (1992). Public use data tape documentation: 1989 detail natality. Center for Disease Control: Data description.
Shurtz, I. (2013). The impact of medical errors on physician behavior: Evidence from malpractice litigation. Journal of Health Economics, 32(2), 331–340.CrossRefPubMed
Shurtz, I. (2014). Malpractice law, physicians financial incentives, and medical treatment: How do they interact? Journal of Law and Economics, 57(1), 1–29.CrossRef
Tussing, A. D., & Wojtowycz, M. A. (1992). The cesarean decision in New York State, 1986: Economic and noneconomic aspects. Medical Care, 30(6), 529–540.CrossRefPubMed
Yang, Y. T., Mello, M. M., Subramanian, S. V., & Studdert, D. M. (2009). Relationship between malpractice litigation pressure and rates of cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean section. Medical Care, 47(2), 234–242.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Do tort reforms impact the incidence of birth by cesarean section? A reassessment
Authors
Javier Cano-Urbina
Daniel Montanera
Publication date
01-03-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
International Journal of Health Economics and Management / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 2199-9023
Electronic ISSN: 2199-9031
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-016-9202-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

International Journal of Health Economics and Management 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research Article

The effect of complementary private health insurance on the use of health care services

Research Article

Healthcare utilization, bypass, and multiple visits: the case of Bhutan

Research Article

Is technology still a major driver of health expenditure in the United States? Evidence from cointegration analysis with multiple structural breaks

Research Article

Economic incentives and diagnostic coding in a public health care system