Reconsidering medical malpractice reform: the case for arbitration and transparency in non-emergent contexts.
This Article proposes a two-pronged legislative response to the current debate over medical malpractice insurance. The author does not advocate mandatory caps on malpractice damages, nor the imposition of a uniform regime on the field of medicine. Rather, he articulates some of the important legal, medical, and societal benefits that would come from embracing arbitration in the non-emergent medical malpractice context. The author also calls for the reformulation of the National Practitioner Data Bank to achieve greater transparentcy and to leverage advances in information technology and data-mining software to measure the risk levels of individual practitioners. This reform, in turn, would open up the possibility of greater subcategorization of premiums and more effective deterrence in medical malpractice insurance.
Lehrman
Thomas D
TD
D035082:Federal Government; D018166:Health Care Reform / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D019300:Medical Errors; D016749:National Practitioner Data Bank; D017008:Negotiating; D011331:Private Practice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D012984:Software; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014481:United States