Literature DB >> 18979149

A modified no-fault malpractice system can resolve multiple healthcare system deficiencies.

Jeffrey J Segal1, Michael Sacopulos.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18979149      PMCID: PMC2628501          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0577-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  6 in total

1.  The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury.

Authors:  I G Stiell; G A Wells; K Vandemheen; C Clement; H Lesiuk; A Laupacis; R D McKnight; R Verbeek; R Brison; D Cass; M E Eisenhauer; G Greenberg; J Worthington
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-05-05       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Liability for medical malpractice: issues and evidence. A Joint Economic Committee study. Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress.

Authors:  Jim Saxton
Journal:  N J Med       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug

3.  Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation.

Authors:  David M Studdert; Michelle M Mello; Atul A Gawande; Tejal K Gandhi; Allen Kachalia; Catherine Yoon; Ann Louise Puopolo; Troyen A Brennan
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-05-11       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Motivations for medico-legal action. Lessons from New Zealand.

Authors:  Marie Bismark; Edward A Dauer
Journal:  J Leg Med       Date:  2006-03

5.  Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment.

Authors:  David M Studdert; Michelle M Mello; William M Sage; Catherine M DesRoches; Jordon Peugh; Kinga Zapert; Troyen A Brennan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-06-01       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care.

Authors:  Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; Thérèse A Stukel; Daniel J Gottlieb; F L Lucas; Etoile L Pinder
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-18       Impact factor: 25.391

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.