Shifting Liability with Licensing: An Empirical Analysis of Medical Malpractice and Scope-of-Practice Laws

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-253
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. McMichael

Abstract Medical malpractice liability plays an important role in the healthcare system, as evidenced by the many studies finding that changes in malpractice liability risk induce changes in the delivery and consumption of care. Importantly, the effect of malpractice liability depends on who is held liable, and recent developments in the healthcare system have clouded which providers face the risk of liability in certain situations. In particular, as the United States continues to face a physician shortage, nurse practitioners (NPs) have assumed greater roles within the healthcare system. Their ability to provide care, however, depends on state scope-of-practice (SOP) laws which often mandate that physicians supervise NPs’ practices. These mandatory supervision laws can facilitate the ability of injured patients to use various familiar doctrines, e. g. respondeat superior and negligent supervision, to hold supervising physicians liable based on the acts of NPs. As healthcare becomes increasingly team-based and as NPs deliver more care traditionally provided by physicians, understanding the interaction between malpractice liability and SOP laws will become critical. This Article reports novel empirical evidence on the interplay between malpractice liability and SOP laws. Examining a unique dataset of the malpractice premiums charged to physicians in various specialties, I analyze the extent to which SOP laws requiring that physicians supervise the practices of NPs impact the malpractice liability risk faced by physicians. In general, eliminating physician supervision requirements reduce the malpractice risk faced by physicians (as measured by the premiums paid to insure against this risk) by 7.5 %. In addition to elucidating a previously unappreciated interaction between tort law and state SOP laws, this evidence suggests that the imposition of physician supervision requirements may blunt the role of tort law in deterring the provision of unsafe or low-quality care. If SOP laws facilitate the shifting of liability risk from NPs to physicians through various tort doctrines, then neither NPs nor physicians will be appropriately deterred. Indeed, reaching optimal deterrence for one group would necessarily imply suboptimality for the other. This Article reviews several options to address this problem and recommends removing physician supervision requirements from state SOP laws.

2017 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 312-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. McMichael ◽  
Barbara J. Safriet ◽  
Peter I. Buerhaus

Patients can hold physicians directly or vicariously liable for the malpractice of nurse practitioners under their supervision. Restrictive scope-of-practice laws governing nurse practitioners can ease patients’ legal burdens in establishing physician liability. We analyze the effect of restrictive scope-of-practice laws on the number of malpractice payments made on behalf of physicians between 1999 and 2012. Enacting less restrictive scope-of-practice laws decreases the number of payments made by physicians by as much as 31%, suggesting that restrictive scope-of-practice laws have a salient extraregulatory effect on physician malpractice rates. The effect of enacting less restrictive laws varies depending on the medical malpractice reforms that are in place, with the largest decrease in physician malpractice rates occurring in states that have enacted fewer malpractice reforms. Relaxing scope-of-practice laws could mitigate the adverse extraregulatory effect on physicians identified in this study and could also lead to improvements in access to care.


In this chapter, the role played by non-physician providers such as Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs) is discussed in depth. These providers have delivered services in a variety of healthcare settings for a long time, but there is a recent urgency about the importance of the role that they can play in the healthcare system. The authors expound on research related to cost, quality, and satisfaction of patients receiving care from non-physician providers, and address barriers such as restrictive scope of practice and unjust payment policies. The use of other providers such as pharmacists and grand-aides is also addressed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann E. Fronczek

Individuals are increasingly seeking care in virtual care environments as the healthcare system evolves. Nurses are well poised to enhance their scope of practice into these environments that can transcend time, space, and location. The author discusses both how virtual care environments are seen in today’s healthcare systems and how nursing theory and research will contribute to enhancing quality care for individuals in virtual care environments.


2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (02) ◽  
pp. 117-119
Author(s):  
Gregory Q. Hill ◽  
Robert K. Ryu

AbstractAccording to a 2017 survey of 4,000 physicians across 25 different specialties in the United States, 55% of respondents report having been sued at least once, with nearly half of them having been sued multiple times. In addition, procedural specialists are far more likely to be sued. As a procedural-driven specialty, interventional radiology (IR) practitioners are subject to these statistics. While the focus of all IR practices is providing the highest quality care safely and efficiently, medical errors and complications are unavoidable. Understanding the process of medical malpractice litigation is necessary to develop strategies on how best to avoid and mitigate the hardships of the process.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Katz

Malpractice liability systems exist, in part, to provide compensation for medical malpractice, corrective justice for those injured by it, and to incentivize quality care by punishing substandard care. Defensive medicine is loosely defined as practice based primarily on the fear of litigation rather than on expected patient outcomes. It is largely motivated by a physician’s belief that the malpractice system is unfair, slow, and ineffective; these perceptions make malpractice concerns one of the largest physician stressors. A physician’s perception of malpractice rarely correlates with the stringency of their state’s tort system, overestimates their own risk, and overestimates the cost of defensive practices. While estimates are difficult to make, defensive medicine likely only accounts for 2.8% of total healthcare expenses. The phrase “tort reform” has been frequently used to suggest fixes to the malpractice system and to defensive practices. Safe harbors, clinical practice guidelines, comparative fault reform, reducing plaintiff attorney fees, and apology laws have each been evaluated as potential remedies to defensive practice, although most are unproven and all must be deployed in a state-by-state approach.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-305
Author(s):  
Marcin Michalak

The American model of medical malpractice liability has been the subject of lively public and scientific debate for years. This system is characterized by a large number of lawsuits against doctors and very high damages awarded in such cases. In turn, these phenomena contribute to the occurrence of so-called medical malpractice crisis. It seems that an important place in the proper understanding of the American model of physicians’ liability for medical malpractice may be the historical analysis of legal norms regulating this matter. The text claims that the modern specificity of the system of liability for medical malpractice is closely related to the development of American law in its formative period in the nineteenth century. The article indicates four features of the legal system developed at that time, which today are identified as responsible for a large number of lawsuits and high compensation in malpractice trials. These include, in particular, linking medical liability to the tort law regime, domination of the civil law dimension of liability for medical errors, the role of the jury in lawsuits for medical malpractice, and the method of remuneration of attorneys in such cases.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 1427-1429
Author(s):  
Runa Jha

Medical malpractice is defined as any act or omission by a physician during treatment of a atient that deviates from accepted norms of practice in the medical community and causes an injury to the patient. In the United States, Medical malpractice is a specific subset of tort law that deals with professional negligence. “Tort” is the Norman word for “wrong,” and tort law is a body of law that creates and provides remedies for civil wrongs that are distinct from ontractual duties or criminal wrongs.Although the laws of medical malpractice differ significantly between nations, as a broad general rule liability follows when a health care practitioner does not show a fair, reasonable and competent degree of skill when providing medical care to a patient.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Na-Eun Cho ◽  
Yue Maggie Zhou

We investigate the classic strategy choice between low cost and high quality when quality is not directly observable and legal liability about quality is uncertain. In addition, we investigate how for-profit and nonprofit organizations differ in their responses to a changing risk of quality liability. Our theoretical analysis predicts that nonprofit organizations, because of their lesser dependence on profits and greater dependence on support from donors and local communities based on perceived quality, will adjust their investment in quality more aggressively than for-profit organizations in response to exogenous changes in the risk of quality liability. This difference in responsiveness will be greater for organizations with better reputations for quality. We find support for these predictions using data on hospital medical expenditures, state medical malpractice awards, and tort reforms in the United States for 1997–2006.


2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel P Kessler

The U.S. medical malpractice liability system has two principal objectives: to compensate patients who are injured through the negligence of healthcare providers and to deter providers from practicing negligently. In practice, however, the system is slow and costly to administer. It both fails to compensate patients who have suffered from bad medical care and compensates those who haven't. According to opinion surveys of physicians, the system creates incentives to undertake cost-ineffective treatments based on fear of legal liability—to practice “defensive medicine.” The failures of the liability system and the high cost of health care in the United States have led to an important debate over tort policy. How well does malpractice law achieve its intended goals? How large of a problem is defensive medicine and can reforms to malpractice law reduce its impact on healthcare spending? The flaws of the existing system have led a number of states to change their laws in a way that would reduce malpractice liability—to adopt “tort reforms.” Evidence from several studies suggests that wisely chosen reforms have the potential to reduce healthcare spending significantly with no adverse impact on patient health outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document