Effect of Increasing Malpractice Insurance Cost and Subsequent Practice of Defensive Medicine on Out-of-Hospital Birth Rates in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Across the United States, the burden of malpractice litigation has influenced obstetricians and obstetric institutions to avoid high-risk patients, favor cesarean delivery, and decrease availability of trial of labor after cesarean. Recently, the United States has experienced an increase in out-of-hospital (OOH) births. OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this article is to investigate the association between malpractice insurance premium (MIP) and OOH births in the United States from 2000 to 2014. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed changes in OOH birth rates and MIP from 2000 to 2014 using birth data from the National Vital Statistics System and Medical Liability Monitor's annual survey, respectively. The change in OOH birth rates was then compared with the change in MIP. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2014, there has been approximately 60% increase in MIP from national average of $40,949 to $65,210 (p < 0.05). OOH births increased 57% from 39,398 births to 59,674 births (p < 0.05). There was a significant positive correlation between increase in MIP and increase in OOH births (p < 0.05, R 2 = 0.14). CONCLUSION: MIP and OOH birth rates have a significantly associated increase from 2000 to 2014. Given that malpractice climate affects other aspects of obstetric practice, we cautiously propose that increasing MIP may be associated with an increase in OOH births.

Assessing the overuse of medicines.

The use of medicines has increased markedly in many countries over recent years, providing clear evidence of the increasing 'pharmacaeuticalisation' of society. This paper contributes to the sociological analysis of pharmaceuticalisation by starting to explore how we can begin to make judgements as to when and to what extent some medicines are being overused--an important aspect that, rather surprisingly, has not so far been the focus of attention those analysing the process. It considers the World Health Organisation's criteria for the 'rational' use of medicines, pointing to some of the issues they raise. It then develops a typology of over and underuse derived from these criteria. This provides a framework for the discussion of assessing overuse that focuses in particular on the widespread and increasing use of medicines that are not very effective for the conditions for which they are prescribed, and their use where the issue of clinical need is in doubt. Some of the factors that encourage overuse are also considered.

The effect of medical malpractice liability on rate of referrals received by specialist physicians.

Using nationally representative data from the United States, this paper analyzed the effect of a state's medical malpractice environment on referral visits received by specialist physicians. The analytic sample included 12,839 ambulatory visits to specialist care doctors in office-based settings in the United States during 2003­2007. Whether the patient was referred for the visit was examined for its association with the state's malpractice environment, assessed by the frequency and severity of paid medical malpractice claims, medical malpractice insurance premiums and an indicator for whether the state had a cap on non-economic damages. After accounting for potential confounders such as economic or professional incentives within practices, the analysis showed that statutory caps on non-economic damages of $250,000 were significantly associated with lower likelihood of a specialist receiving referrals, suggesting a potential impact of a state's medical malpractice environment on physicians' referral behavior.

Malpractice liability and defensive medicine: a national survey of neurosurgeons.

BACKGROUND: Concern over rising healthcare expenditures has led to increased scrutiny of medical practices. As medical liability and malpractice risk rise to crisis levels, the medical-legal environment has contributed to the practice of defensive medicine as practitioners attempt to mitigate liability risk. High-risk specialties, such as neurosurgery, are particularly affected and neurosurgeons have altered their practices to lessen medical-legal risk. We present the first national survey of American neurosurgeons' perceptions of malpractice liability and defensive medicine practices. METHODS: A validated, 51-question online-survey was sent to 3344 practicing U.S. neurosurgeon members of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, which represents 76% of neurosurgeons in academic and private practices. RESULTS: A total of 1028 surveys were completed (31% response rate) by neurosurgeons representing diverse sub-specialty practices. Respondents engaged in defensive medicine practices by ordering additional imaging studies (72%), laboratory tests (67%), referring patients to consultants (66%), or prescribing medications (40%). Malpractice premiums were considered a "major or extreme" burden by 64% of respondents which resulted in 45% of respondents eliminating high-risk procedures from their practice due to liability concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Concerns and perceptions about medical liability lead practitioners to practice defensive medicine. As a result, diagnostic testing, consultations and imaging studies are ordered to satisfy a perceived legal risk, resulting in higher healthcare expenditures. To minimize malpractice risk, some neurosurgeons have eliminated high-risk procedures. Left unchecked, concerns over medical liability will further defensive medicine practices, limit patient access to care, and increase the cost of healthcare delivery in the United States.

Incidence and costs of defensive medicine among orthopedic surgeons in the United States: a national survey study.

Defensive medicine is defined as medical practices that may exonerate physicians from liability without significant benefit to patients. No study has evaluated the United States national incidence of defensive medicine in the field of orthopedic surgery. In the study reported here, we investigated the practice of defensive medicine and the resultant financial implications of such behavior by orthopedic surgeons in the US. A Web-based survey was sent to 2000 orthopedic surgeons in the US. Of the 1214 respondents, 1168 (96%) reported having practiced defensive medicine by ordering imaging, laboratory tests, specialist referrals, or hospital admissions mainly to avoid possible malpractice liability. On average, 24% of all ordered tests were for defensive reasons. Mean national Medicare payment information was used to calculate the cost of defensive medicine per respondent: approximately $100,000 per year. With there being 20,400 practicing orthopedic surgeons in the US, we estimated that the national cost of defensive medicine for the specialty of orthopedic surgery is $2 billion annually. Orthopedic surgeons' defensive medicine is a significant factor in health care costs and is of marginal benefit to patients. Policies aimed at managing liability risk may be useful in containing such practices.

Why do physicians order unnecessary preoperative tests? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Routine preoperative testing is ineffective and costly. We explored reasons for the continued use of unnecessary preoperative tests and approaches to limit such testing. METHODS: We interviewed 23 physicians and nurse administrators involved in preoperative decision-making in our local health care environment. We conducted interviews using a semi-structured format and analyzed the data using a template organizing style. RESULTS: Some interviewees feel routine preoperative tests are beneficial, others are ambivalent about preoperative tests in their practice, and many believe there is considerable unnecessary testing. As interviewees discussed factors that lead to the ordering of unnecessary preoperative tests, five major themes emerged: practice tradition, belief that other physicians want the tests done, medicolegal worries, concerns about surgical delays or cancellation, and lack of awareness of evidence and guidelines. Interviewees suggested that a consensus guideline, improved education, and increased collaboration between specialities could decrease unnecessary testing. CONCLUSIONS: Our qualitative findings demonstrate barriers to limiting unnecessary preoperative testing but also suggest interventions that could improve the preoperative testing process. Minimizing unnecessary preoperative tests could decrease cost, maximize quality, and improve the patient experience.

The medical malpractice crisis: what is the cause? Is there a cure?

Medical malpractice liability insurance premiums have been escalating for years and are at an all-time high. Malpractice reform is highly contentious with doctors, insurance companies, and other business interests lobbying to shield themselves from the high cost of lawsuits and multi-million dollar awards, and trial attorneys and patient advocates claiming that suing is the only recourse for people harmed by the healthcare system. Until the courts, lawmakers, and/or insurance companies agree on a solution, however, there are several things a practice and its administration and physicians can do to minimize the occurrence of a malpractice lawsuit. In addition to practicing sound medicine, physicians and their staffs must follow sound business policies and customer service procedures in their practices.

Effects of the medical liability system in Australia, the UK, and the USA.

Although the direct costs of the medical liability system account for a small fraction of total health spending, the system's indirect effects on cost and quality of care can be much more important. Here, we summarise findings of existing research on the effects of the medical liability systems of Australia, the UK, and the USA. We find systematic evidence of defensive medicine--medical practice based on fear of legal liability rather than on patients' best interests. We conclude with discussion of four avenues for reform of traditional tort compensation for medical injury and several suggestions for future research.

Observation: the original sin of mental health nursing?

The assessment and management of 'risk' has become a focal aspect of contemporary mental health practice. Given their proximal relationship with service users, nurses most often represent the 'front line' of risk management, typically expressed in hospital settings through the bureaucratic process of 'observation'. Much of the available 'evidence' is highly critical of this practice and service user researchers, in particular, have repeatedly called for alternatives. This paper reviews the historical and inter-professional dimensions of the practice of observation, contrasting this with mental health nursing's search over the past two decades, at least within the UK, for professional autonomy. Contemporary mental health nursing is trapped in an anachronistic relationship with psychiatric medicine. If nursing is to prosper, nurses must address the complex issues underlying this inter-professional relationship. The authors describe the development of 'bridging'--a radical alternative to observation practice, which represents a means of managing 'risk' and a way that nurses might develop their interpersonal relationships with people deemed to be at risk, thereby asserting the power of 'caring'.

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

CONTEXT: How often physicians alter their clinical behavior because of the threat of malpractice liability, termed defensive medicine, and the consequences of those changes, are central questions in the ongoing medical malpractice reform debate. OBJECTIVE: To study the prevalence and characteristics of defensive medicine among physicians practicing in high-liability specialties during a period of substantial instability in the malpractice environment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Mail survey of physicians in 6 specialties at high risk of litigation (emergency medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, obstetrics/gynecology, and radiology) in Pennsylvania in May 2003. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of physicians in each specialty reporting defensive medicine or changes in scope of practice and characteristics of defensive medicine (assurance and avoidance behavior). RESULTS: A total of 824 physicians (65%) completed the survey. Nearly all (93%) reported practicing defensive medicine. "Assurance behavior" such as ordering tests, performing diagnostic procedures, and referring patients for consultation, was very common (92%). Among practitioners of defensive medicine who detailed their most recent defensive act, 43% reported using imaging technology in clinically unnecessary circumstances. Avoidance of procedures and patients that were perceived to elevate the probability of litigation was also widespread. Forty-two percent of respondents reported that they had taken steps to restrict their practice in the previous 3 years, including eliminating procedures prone to complications, such as trauma surgery, and avoiding patients who had complex medical problems or were perceived as litigious. Defensive practice correlated strongly with respondents' lack of confidence in their liability insurance and perceived burden of insurance premiums. CONCLUSION: Defensive medicine is highly prevalent among physicians in Pennsylvania who pay the most for liability insurance, with potentially serious implications for cost, access, and both technical and interpersonal quality of care.