Case for tort reform in medical malpractice.
Under tort law, injured parties have the basic right to seek indemnity for wrongful injury, including injury from medical malpractice. Unfortunately, the present system is associated with many undesirable secondary effects, including problems of patient access to care, excessive testing or overtreatment, and undertreatment due to doctors' fear of malpractice. Nationwide, there are innumerable cases of doctors abandoning obstetrical or other high risk practices, or migrating away from states with less friendly tort laws. The California MICRA legislation of 1976 is often cited as a model for tort reform, but even this model legislation may be insufficient to restore a beleaguered trust between medical providers and their patients. Several key research studies suggest that the jury system fails to fairly and reliably compensate injured patients, and fails to deter or discipline errant doctors. To adequately meet the common needs of patients and health care providers, there must be an appropriate emphasis on aggressive risk management, quality improvement, patient safety, professional oversight, and responsible insurance underwriting. Moreover, there must be a systemic improvement of the current tort system as it pertains to medical malpractice. Although incremental reforms at the state level are slowly occurring and should certainly be supported, a greater reward may ultimately stem from more radical restructuring to a system of medical tribunals.
DeLuke
Dean M
DM
dmdoms@nycap.rr.com
D006801:Humans; D007351:Insurance, Liability / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D016365:Liability, Legal; D008318:Malpractice / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D012308:Risk Management; D014481:United States