Medical Malpractice: The Case for Contract

1976 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Epstein

Medical malpractice, a subject that once languished in comparative obscurity, has in recent years become one of the most hotly debated topics of our time. The reasons for its surge to prominence, not only in medical and legal circles but also in the public eye, are not difficult to detect. Vast increases, slow at first but more rapid of late, have been evident in the number of medical malpractice actions; in the number of actions in which the plaintiffs have recovered; in the average size of their recovery; and, as a consequence, in the cost of medical malpractice insurance. In and of itself the unmistakable trend in the figures need not be a source of public concern. We could simply wash our hands of the whole affair and indulge in the happy assumption that the matter eventually will sort itself out in the marketplace. The cost of malpractice awards could be treated as just another cost of providing medical care that will, in the long run at least, be passed on to either taxpayer or consumer.

1979 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-195
Author(s):  
Elizabeth D. Schrero

AbstractFifteen states have created Patient Compensation Funds in response to the increased cost and reduced availability of medical malpractice insurance associated with the so-called “medical malpractice crisis.” Patient Compensation Fund statutes limit health care providers’ liability to a specified amount, and establish state-administered funds to compensate victorious malpractice plaintiffs for damage awards in excess of that amount.This Note examines the Patient Compensation Fund mechanism, evaluates its effectiveness as a compensation system for malpractice victims, and recommends particular provisions that might enhance its effectiveness. The Note concludes that the Patient Compensation Fund mechanism is an effective means of increasing the availability and of reducing the cost of medical malpractice insurance, and should be adopted by other states experiencing a “medical malpractice crisis.”


2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
William J. Smith ◽  
Tania A. Celis ◽  
Bruce M. Bird

<p>For most doctors, obtaining medical malpractice insurance coverage each year represents a significant expense.  During the past three decades, researchers have developed several competing theories to explain changes in the cost of obtaining medical malpractice insurance in the United States.  This article focuses on the relationship, on a nationwide basis, between medical malpractice awards, the presence of tort reform, investment returns by insurers, and the impact of each upon the cost of obtaining medical malpractice insurance.  The results of a multivariate equation are then used to analyze the relative impacts of these competing theories.</p>


1976 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 511-563 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. W. Reder

The sharp increase that occurred in 1975 in premiums charged doctors and hospitals for medical malpractice insurance raises a number of issues of concern to economists. This paper attempts to survey some of the more important. At first glance the various sections may appear unrelated to each other and without a unifying theme. However, this disunity is superficial. Sections III-V, the bulk of the paper, are repeated applications of a central proposition of economic theory: purposive behavior is to be explained as the rational pursuit of a set of competing objectives by individuals who are constrained by limited resources and must therefore allocate these resources among alternative uses. This proposition is used in section 111 to explain differences in malpractice claim payments among states and changes over time; in section IV, to analyze the effect of different legal arrangements for distributing the cost of iatrogenic injuries on the behavior of patients and doctors; in section V, to show the effect of different methods of compensating lawyers upon their fees and the volume of litigation they undertake; and in section VI, to consider the unresolved question of “who bears the cost of malpractice claim settlements?” As will be seen, the nature of the argument reflects an economist's outlook; its viewpoint is different from that of doctors, lawyers, or “concerned citizens.”


2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 188-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Freeman L. Farrow

Critics of the current medical malpractice tort system claim that adjudication of malpractice claims before generalist judges and lay juries contributes to rising costs of medical malpractice insurance premiums and medical care. They claim that properly deciding issues in this realm requires specialized knowledge of medicine and medical technology that juries, and even judges of general jurisdiction, do not possess. One lobbying group alleges there is a continuing medical malpractice litigation crisis in the United States, evidenced by increasing medical costs, deaths from needless medical errors, departure of physicians from the practice of medicine due to increasing medical malpractice insurance premiums, and random medical justice in medical malpractice cases. Whether there is a direct, causal correlation between the increasing cost of medical malpractice insurance premiums and medical malpractice litigation is debatable.


1986 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-6
Author(s):  
Edwin E. Breitenbach

In the mid 1970s medical malpractice insurance carriers, faced with huge increases in both the number of claims and the size of awards, elected either to discontinue writing medical malpractice insurance policies or to raise premiums for this type of insurance by a factor of two or three. Faced with the prospect of unavailability of affordable medical malpractice insurance many physicians elected to go without any malpractice coverage, went into early retirement terminating their practices altogether, or narrowed the scope of their practices to eliminate those procedures which carried an inordinately high risk of medical malpractice litigation. In response to the potential unavailability of adequate health care because of the impending medical malpractice insurance crisis many states enacted remedial emergency legislation in an attempt to deal with the crisis by providing an incentive for insurance carriers to either reenter the medical malpractice field or for those remaining to limit their proposed premium increases substantially. California was one of those states which enacted broad remedial legislation. In addition other states enacted legislation quite similar to California's. An attempt will be made to review those statutes passed by California in specific response to the medical malpractice crisis and their history as they underwent constitutional attack in the California appellate court system. The legislation reviewed here is of course applicable only in California. However, many other states have enacted comparable legislation and many jurisdictions currently are considering statutory changes which would parallel California's laws. California's current statutes dealing with medical malpractice litigation could be considered a model for those jurisdictions currently facing a crisis in affordability or availability of malpractice insurance coverage.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document