Rethinking the Obvious: Time for New Ideas on Medical Malpractice Tort Reform.

States have engaged in medical malpractice litigation reforms over the past 30 years to reduce malpractice insurance premiums, increase the supply of physicians, reduce the cost of health care, and increase efficiency. These reforms have included caps on noneconomic damages and legal procedural changes. Despite these reforms, health care costs in the United States remain among the highest in the world, provider shortages remain, and defensive medicine practices persist. The purpose of this study was to determine how successful traditional medical malpractice reforms have been at controlling medical costs, decreasing defensive medicine practices, lowering malpractice premiums, and reducing the frequency of medical malpractice litigation. Research has shown that direct reforms and aggressive damage caps have had the most significant impact on lowering malpractice premiums and increasing physician supply. Out of the metrics that were improved by malpractice reforms, similar improvements were shown because of quality reform measures. While traditional tort reforms have shown some targeted improvement, large-scale, system-wide change has not been realized, and thus it is time to consider alternative reforms.

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.

Challenges of New Healthcare Reform Act 2017 and Possible Rise of Defensive Medicine in Nepal.

Hippocratic oath, written 4th or 5th century BC, is still the binding mantra for physicians, which swears to fulfill to the best of one's ability and judgement, and treat sick human beings not just illness. But with changing health trends in southeast Asia region, there is a dramatic shift in patients and patients' party expectations regarding treatment, recovery, complications, and death. Such expectations havelead to violence against physicians and shift towards alternative medical practice. This article explores the possible rise of defensive medicine and its broader implications in health care system in Nepal with regard to the new 'Muluki Aparadh Samhita Ain 2074/Criminal (Code) Act 2017'. Keywords: Changing health; criminal act; defensive medicine; muluki ain, Nepal.

Malpractice Claim Fears and the Costs of Treating Medicare Patients: A New Approach to Estimating the Costs of Defensive Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of defensive medicine among elderly Medicare patients. DATA SOURCES: We use a 2008 national physician survey linked to respondents' elderly Medicare patients' claims data. STUDY DESIGN: Using a sample of survey respondent/beneficiary dyads stratified by physician specialty, we estimated cross-sectional regressions of annual costs on patient covariates and a medical malpractice fear index formed from five validated physician survey questions. Defensive medicine costs were calculated as the difference between observed patient costs and those under hypothetical alternative levels of malpractice concern, and then aggregated to estimate average defensive medicine costs per beneficiary. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: The physician survey was conducted by mail. Patient claims were linked to survey respondents and reweighted to approximate the elderly Medicare beneficiary population. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Higher levels of the malpractice fear index were associated with higher patient spending. Based on the measured associations, we estimated that defensive medicine accounted for 8 to 20 percent of total costs under alternative scenarios. The highest estimate is associated with a counterfactual of no malpractice concerns, which is unlikely to be socially optimal as some extrinsic incentives to avoid medical errors are desirable. Among specialty groups, primary care physicians contributed the most to defensive medicine spending. Higher costs resulted mostly from more hospital admissions and greater postacute care. CONCLUSIONS: Although results are based on measured associations between malpractice fears and spending, and may not reflect the true causal effects, they suggest defensive medicine likely contributes substantial additional costs to Medicare.

Perception of Resources Spent on Defensive Medicine and History of Being Sued Among Hospitalists: Results from a National Survey.

The United States spends substantially more per capita for healthcare than any other nation. Defensive medicine is 1 source of such spending, but its extent is unclear. Using a national survey of approximately 1500 US hospitalists, we report the estimates the US hospitalists provided of the percent of resources spent on defensive medicine and correlates of their estimates. We also ascertained how many reported being sued. Sixty-eight percent of eligible recipients responded. Overall, respondents estimated that 37.5% of healthcare costs are due to defensive medicine. Just over 25% of our respondents, including 55% of those in practice for 20 years or more, reported being sued for medical malpractice. Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital affiliation, more years practicing as a physician, being male, and being a non-Hispanic white individual were all independently associated with decreased estimates of resources spent for defensive medicine.

Defensive medicine among neurosurgeons in the Netherlands: a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: In defensive medicine, practice is motivated by legal rather than medical reasons. Previous studies have analyzed the correlation between perceived medico-legal risk and defensive behavior among neurosurgeons in the United States, Canada, and South Africa, but not yet in Europe. The aim of this study is to explore perceived liability burdens and self-reported defensive behaviors among neurosurgeons in the Netherlands and compare their practices with their non-European counterparts. METHODS: A survey was sent to 136 neurosurgeons. The survey included questions from several domains: surgeon characteristics, patient demographics, type of practice, surgeon liability profile, policy coverage, defensive practices, and perception of the liability environment. Survey responses were analyzed and summarized. RESULTS: Forty-five neurosurgeons filled out the questionnaire (response rate of 33.1%). Almost half (n = 20) reported paying less than 5% of their income to annual malpractice premiums. Nearly all respondents view their insurance premiums as a minor or no burden (n = 42) and are confident that in their coverage is sufficient (n = 41). Most neurosurgeons (n = 38) do not see patients as "potential lawsuits". CONCLUSIONS: Relative to their American peers, Dutch neurosurgeons view their insurance premiums as less burdensome, their patients as a smaller legal threat, and their practice as less risky in general. They are sued less often and engage in fewer defensive behaviors than their non-European counterparts. The medico-legal climate in the Netherlands may contribute to this difference.

Prevalence and costs of defensive medicine: a national survey of Italian physicians.

Objective To identify the prevalence of the practice of defensive medicine among Italian hospital physicians, its costs and the reasons for practising defensive medicine and possible solutions to reduce the practice of defensive medicine. Methods Cross-sectional web survey. Main outcome measures Number of physicians reporting having engaged in any defensive medicine behaviour in the previous year. Results A total of 1313 physicians completed the survey. Ninety-five per cent believed that defensive medicine would increase in the near future. The practice of defensive medicine accounted for approximately 10% of total annual Italian national health expenditure. Conclusions Defensive medicine is a significant factor in health care costs without adding any benefit to patients. The economic burden of defensive medicine on health care systems should provide a substantial stimulus for a prompt review of this situation in a time of economic crisis. Malpractice reform, together with a systematic use of evidence-based clinical guidelines, is likely to be the most effective way to reduce defensive medicine.

Damage caps and defensive medicine, revisited.

Does tort reform reduce defensive medicine and thus healthcare spending? Several (though not all) prior studies, using a difference-in-differences (DiD) approach, find lower Medicare spending for hospital care after states adopt caps on non-economic or total damages ("damage caps"), during the "second" reform wave of the mid-1980s. We re-examine this issue in several ways. We study the nine states that adopted caps during the "third reform wave," from 2002 to 2005. We find that damage caps have no significant impact on Medicare Part A spending, but predict roughly 4% higher Medicare Part B spending. We then revisit the 1980s caps, and find no evidence of a post-adoption drop (or rise) in spending for these caps.

Defensive Medicine in U.S. Spine Neurosurgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: To compare defensive practices of U.S. spine and nonspine neurosurgeons in the context of state medical liability risk. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Defensive medicine is a commonly reported and costly phenomenon in neurosurgery. Although state liability risk is thought to contribute greatly to defensive practice, variation within neurosurgical specialties has not been well explored. METHODS: A validated, online survey was sent via email to 3344 members of the American Board of Neurological Surgeons. The instrument contained eight question domains: surgeon characteristics, patient characteristics, practice type, insurance type, surgeon liability profile, basic surgeon reimbursement, surgeon perceptions of medical legal environment, and the practice of defensive medicine. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 30.6% (n = 1026), including 499 neurosurgeons performing mainly spine procedures (48.6%). Spine neurosurgeons had a similar average practice duration as nonspine neurosurgeons (16.6 vs 16.9 years, P = 0.64) and comparable lifetime case volume (4767 vs 4,703, P = 0.71). The average annual malpractice premium for spine neurosurgeons was similar to nonspine neurosurgeons ($104,480.52 vs $101,721.76, P = 0.60). On average, spine neurosurgeons had a significantly higher rate of ordering labs, medications, referrals, procedures, and imaging solely for liability concerns compared with nonspine neurosurgeons (89.2% vs 84.6%, P = 0.031). Multivariate analysis revealed that spine neurosurgeons were roughly 3 times more likely to practice defensively compared with nonspine neurosurgeons (odds ratio, OR = 2.9, P = 0.001) when controlling for high-risk procedures (OR = 7.8, P < 0.001), annual malpractice premium (OR = 3.3, P = 0.01), percentage of patients publicly insured (OR = 1.1, P = 0.80), malpractice claims in the last 3 years (OR = 1.13, P = 0.71), and state medical-legal environment (OR = 1.3, P = 0.37). CONCLUSION: State-based medical legal environment is not a significant driver of increased defensive medicine associated with neurosurgical spine procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The Impact of State Tort Reforms on Imaging Utilization.

PURPOSE: Defensive medicine, broadly defined as medical practices that protect physicians from malpractice lawsuits without providing benefits to patients, can lead to wasteful use of health care resources and higher cost. Although physicians cite malpractice liability as an important factor driving their decisions to order imaging tests, little research has been done to examine the systematic impact of liability pressure on overall imaging. The authors examined the extent to which radiography use is influenced by malpractice liability pressure among office-based physicians. METHODS: Using National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data from 1999 to 2010, the authors used multivariate difference-in-difference logistic regression to examine the effects of different types of state tort reforms on the probability of radiography orders by primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. RESULTS: The probability that a PCP ordered radiography decreased when states enacted permanent caps on noneconomic damages (-1.0%, P < .01), periodic payment reforms (-1.6%, P < .05), and the total number of tort reforms (-0.5%, P < .05). Specialist physicians were responsive to two reforms: caps on punitive damages (-6.1%, P < .01) and the total number of medical tort laws (-1.2%, P < .01). The passage of new indirect reforms was found to reduce radiography orders for PCPs (-1.8%, P < .05), and the repeal of indirect reforms was found to increase radiography orders for specialists (+3.4%, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: State tort reform seems to reduce physicians' ordering of radiography. This analysis also suggests that reforms that make it harder to sue physicians have a stronger impact than reforms that directly reduce physicians' malpractice claim payments.

The determinants of defensive medicine in Italian hospitals: The impact of being a second victim.

BACKGROUND: Defensive medicine affects healthcare systems worldwide. The concerns and perception about medical liability could lead practitioners to practise defensive medicine. Second victim is a healthcare worker involved in an unanticipated adverse patient event. The role of being second victim and the other possible determinants for defensive medicine is mostly unclear. OBJECTIVE: To study the condition of being second victim as a possible determinants of defensive medicine among Italian hospital physicians. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A secondary analysis of the database of the national survey study on the prevalence and the costs of defensive medicine in Italy that was carried out between April 2014 and June 2014 in 55 Italian hospitals was performed for this study. The demographic section of the questionnaire was selected including the physician's age, gender, specialty, activity volume, grade and the variable being a second victim after an adverse event. RESULTS: A total sample of 1313 physicians (87.5% response rate) was used in the data analyses. Characteristics of the participants included a mean age 49.2 of years and 19.4 average years of experience. The most prominent predictor for practising defensive medicine was the physicians' experience of being a second victim after an adverse event (OR=1.88; 95%CI, 1.38-2.57). Other determinants included age, years of experience, activity volume and risk of specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Malpractice reform, effective support to second victims in hospitals together with a systematic use of evidence-based clinical guidelines, emerged as possible recommendations for reducing defensive medicine.