Skip to main content
Log in

Professionally Responsible Malpractice Reform

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

Medical malpractice reform is both necessary and desirable, yet certain types of reform are clearly preferable to others. We argue that “traditional” tort reform remedies such as stringent damage caps not only fail to address the root causes of negligence and the adverse effects that fear of suit can have on physicians, but also fail to address the needs of patients. Physicians ought to view themselves as professionals who are dedicated to putting patients’ interests ahead of their own. Professionally responsible malpractice reform should therefore be at least as patient-centered as it is physician-centered. Examples of more professionally responsible malpractice reform exist where institutions take a pro-active approach to identification, investigation, and remediation of possible malpractice. Such programs should be implemented more generally, and state laws enacted to facilitate them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Hermer LD, Brody H. Defensive medicine, cost containment, and reform, J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25(5):470-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Medical professionalism project. Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physicians' charter. Lancet 2002;359(9305):520-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shapiro RS, Simpson DE, Lawrence SL, et al. A survey of sued and nonsued physicians and suing patients. Arch. Int. Med. 1989; 149(10):2190-96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Charles SC, Wilbert JR, Franke KJ. Sued and nonsued physicians’ self-reported reactions to malpractice litigation. Am. J. Psychiatry 1985; 142: 437-440.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Martin CA, Wilson JF, Fiebelman ND 3d, Gurley DN, Miller TW. Physicians' psychologic reactions to malpractice litigation. South Med J 1991; Nov;84(11):1300-4.

  6. Bredfelt RC, Ripani A Jr., Cuddeback GL. Emotional response to malpractice suits: should residents be prepared? Fam Med 1987;19(6):465-7.

    Google Scholar 

  7. McQuade JS. The medical malpractice crisis—reflections on the alleged causes and proposed cures: discussion paper. J R Soc Med 1991;84:408–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Defensive medicine and medical malpractice. 1994. Available at biotech.law.lsu.edu/policy/9405.pdf. Accessed December 27, 2010.

  9. Passmore K, Leung W-C. Defensive practice among psychiatrists: a questionnaire survey. Postgraduate Medical Journal 2002;78:671-673.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Summerton N. Positive and negative factors in defensive medicine: a questionnaire study of general practitioners. BMJ 1995; 310:27-29.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Chawla A, Gunderman RB. Defensive medicine: prevalence, implications, and recommendations. Acad Radiol 2008; 15:948–949.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dubay L, Kaestner R, Waidmann T. The impact of malpractice fears on cesarean section rates. J Health Econ 1999;18: 491–522.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Sage, WM et al. Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA 2005;293(21):2609-17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sloan FA, Shadle JH. Is there empirical evidence for “Defensive medicine”? A reassessment. J Health Econ 2009;28:481-91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Grepperud S. Medical errors: responsibility and informal penalties. Harvard Health Pol Rev 2004;5(1):89-95.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mello MM, Brennan TA. Deterrence of medical errors: theory and evidence for malpractice reform. Tex L Rev 2002;80:1595-1637.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Massachusetts Medical Society. Investigation of defensive medicine in Massachusetts. 2008. Available at: http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News_and_Publications2&CONTENTID=27797&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm. Accessed Dec. 27, 2010.

  18. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Sage, WM et al. Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA 2005;293(21):2609-17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mehlman MJ. Malpractice reforms: are they fair? Clin Perinatol 2005; 32:235-249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sloan FA, Mergenhagen PM, Bovbjerg RR. Effects of tort reform on the value of closed malpractice claims: a microanalysis. J Health Pol Policy L 1989;14(4):663-89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Baker T. The medical malpractice myth. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press; 2005:45-58.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Black BS, Silver C, Hyman DA, Sage WM. Stability not crisis: Medical malpractice claim outcomes in Texas: 1988-2002. J Emp L Studies 2005;2:207-59.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Carrier ER, Reschovsky JD, Mello MM et al. Physicians’ fears of malpractice lawsuits are not assuaged by tort reforms. Health Aff 2010;29(9):1585-92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mello MM, Chandra A, Gawande AA, et al. National costs of the medical liability system. Health Aff 2010;29(9):1569-75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith-Bindman R, McCullough CE, Ding A, Quale C, Chu PW. Diagnostic imaging rates for head injury in the ED and states’ medical malpractice tort reforms. Am J Emerg Med 2010; July 12 (epub).

  27. Mello MM, Gallagher TH. Malpractice reform—opportunities for leadership by health care institutions and liability insurers. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:1353-56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Anderson S. Liability claims and costs before and after implementation of a medical error disclosure program. Ann Intern Med 2010;153:213-221.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kraman SS, Hamm G. Risk management: Extreme honesty may be the best policy. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:963-67.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Mastroianni AC, Mello MM, Sommer S, Hardy M, Gallagher TH. The flaws in state ‘apology’ and ‘disclosure’ laws dilute their intended impact on malpractice suits. Health Aff 2010;29(9):1611-19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical liability reform and patient safety: demonstration grants. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/liability/demogrants.htm. Accessed Dec. 27, 2010.

  32. Campbell EG, Regan S, Gruen RL, et al. Professionalism in medicine: results of a national survey of physicians. Ann Internal Med 2007;147(11):795-802.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rabow MW, Wrubel J, Remen RN. Promise of professionalism: personal mission statements among a national cohort of medical students. Ann Fam Med 2009;7(4):336-42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of Interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Howard Brody MD, PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brody, H., Hermer, L.D. Professionally Responsible Malpractice Reform. J GEN INTERN MED 26, 806–809 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1635-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1635-7

KEY WORDS

Navigation