Medical Liability Insurance and Damage Caps: Getting beyond Band Aids to Substantive Systems Treatment to Improve Quality and Safety in Healthcare

2004 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 501-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan A. Liang ◽  
LiLan Ren

The medical liability crisis is affecting our healthcare system. Medical liability and limited physician and hospital access to malpractice insurance have pushed many providers to leave their states, reduce their services, or simply retire. For many, a labor of love has become an agonizing search for insurance to ensure continued practice in an industry for which they trained eight, fifteen, or even twenty years. Limited insurance and potential liability has also led to defensive medicine, in which providers try to avoid lawsuits by ordering tests, procedures, and anything else that might help protect against liability. Moreover, providers may also attempt to avoid high-risk patients or practices altogether to limit opportunities for lawsuits. Although it is questionable whether these efforts actually help, the provider perception of self-preservation through defensive medicine is undeniable—and providers, like everyone, act on their perceptions.

1992 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 645-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
I Hay

Following the Western world's economic ‘crisis’ of the early 1970s and the related medical liability insurance calamity in the United States, new spatial and organizational arrangements emerged in the US medical malpractice insurance market. Reorganization gave a major London-based reinsurer—Lloyd's—a great deal of potential influence over the politically powerful US medical profession. At the same time as the prospects of control over medicine and law were being concentrated in London, Lloyd's was confronting immense financial difficulties arising from asbestos-related liability claims in the United States. Through the political influence derived from their economic connection with US physicians and malpractice insurers, Lloyd's seems to have been able to encourage US tort law reforms which minimize its profit-seeking underwriting members' exposure to asbestos-related and medical liability-related claims.


2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. S54-S55 ◽  
Author(s):  
F.W. Jansen ◽  
J. Wind ◽  
J.E.L. Cremeres ◽  
W.A. Bemelman

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 392-401
Author(s):  
Rowine Hayes Brown

The issue of medical liability has reached crisis proportions in the United States today. Such is a consequence of the burgeoning number of suits, the exorbitant damages awarded, and the excessive premiums or inavailability of medical liability insurance. Pediatrics has until recently been a low-risk specialty, but now suits are being brought against pediatricians with increasing frequency, especially against neonatologists. Medical liability suits are brought on many different legal theories. Broad attempts are being made to solve the problem. Pediatricians can and should take prophylactic steps to ward off such suits.


Author(s):  
K. DANIELS ◽  
T. VANDERSTEEGEN ◽  
W. MARNEFFE ◽  
L. DE WILDE

The medical liability system and defensive behaviour in Belgium The aim of the medical liability system is, on the one hand, providing adequate compensation to victims of medical incidents and, on the other hand, incentivising health care providers to adopt sufficient care. However, the fear of healthcare providers for being involved in a liability procedure in case of a medical incident may cause them to practice defensive medicine. Defensive medicine is defined as the ordering of more tests, procedures and visits (assurance behaviour) or the avoidance of high-risk patients or procedures (avoidance behaviour), primarily (but not necessarily solely) to reduce the exposure to malpractice liability. Although various foreign studies assess the prevalence of defensive medicine, it is not yet sufficiently clear to what extent Belgian physicians act defensively in practice. A survey conducted in 2015 among 90 specialist physicians indicates that the medical liability system in Belgium may have an influence on their clinical practice and decision-making. However, additional research is necessary to inform policymakers about the real prevalence of defensive behaviour and its potential drivers and consequences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document