NationStates Jolt Archive


Defensive Medicine common practice in US

Selgin
16-07-2005, 18:19
A recent article in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2005) has shown that, of the 824 doctors in its survey, 92% practiced at least some form of defensive medicine. Directly quoted as follows:

Defensive Medicine Among High-Risk Specialist Physicians in a Volatile Malpractice Environment
David M. Studdert, LLB, ScD, MPH; Michelle M. Mello, JD, PhD, MPhil; William M. Sage, MD, JD; Catherine M. DesRoches, DrPH; Jordon Peugh, MA; Kinga Zapert, PhD; Troyen A. Brennan, MD, JD, MPH


JAMA. 2005;293:2609-2617.

Context How often physicians alter their clinical behavior because of the threat of malpractice liability, termed defensive medicine, and the consequences of those changes, are central questions in the ongoing medical malpractice reform debate.

Objective To study the prevalence and characteristics of defensive medicine among physicians practicing in high-liability specialties during a period of substantial instability in the malpractice environment.

Design, Setting, and Participants Mail survey of physicians in 6 specialties at high risk of litigation (emergency medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, obstetrics/gynecology, and radiology) in Pennsylvania in May 2003.

Main Outcome Measures Number of physicians in each specialty reporting defensive medicine or changes in scope of practice and characteristics of defensive medicine (assurance and avoidance behavior).

Results A total of 824 physicians (65%) completed the survey. Nearly all (93%) reported practicing defensive medicine. "Assurance behavior" such as ordering tests, performing diagnostic procedures, and referring patients for consultation, was very common (92%). Among practitioners of defensive medicine who detailed their most recent defensive act, 43% reported using imaging technology in clinically unnecessary circumstances. Avoidance of procedures and patients that were perceived to elevate the probability of litigation was also widespread. Forty-two percent of respondents reported that they had taken steps to restrict their practice in the previous 3 years, including eliminating procedures prone to complications, such as trauma surgery, and avoiding patients who had complex medical problems or were perceived as litigious. Defensive practice correlated strongly with respondents’ lack of confidence in their liability insurance and perceived burden of insurance premiums.

Conclusion Defensive medicine is highly prevalent among physicians in Pennsylvania who pay the most for liability insurance, with potentially serious implications for cost, access, and both technical and interpersonal quality of care.


Author Affiliations: Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health (Drs Studdert, Mello, DesRoches, and Brennan), Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School (Dr Brennan), and Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Dr Brennan), Boston, Mass; Columbia Law School, New York, NY (Dr Sage); and Harris Interactive Inc, Rochester, NY (Mr Peugh and Dr Zapert).


One of the common arguements of those against limits on medical malpractice suits was there was no evidence of this practice. Apparently, now there is, at least in Pennsylvania, so I think it's a safe conclusion to say that this practice is adding quite a bit to the cost of health care here. Thoughts?
Selgin
16-07-2005, 18:33
Bump.
Have to go to a meeting, be back in an hour. Hope I get some response.
Ph33rdom
16-07-2005, 19:04
Well, since you're bumping it... Hmmm, what do I think.

I think people should sign waivers they want to discuss unproven treatments. I think Doctors should be held accountable to peer review criticism IF they have a disproportionate number of 'harmed' patience from these new treatments etc.

However, without the government coming in and regulating medicine entirely, suing for damages done from malpractice can't be removed, but can't be with too strong a bite either.

Paying for Real damages with much less punitive damages. Perhaps?
Selgin
16-07-2005, 19:17
Well, since you're bumping it... Hmmm, what do I think.

I think people should sign waivers they want to discuss unproven treatments. I think Doctors should be held accountable to peer review criticism IF they have a disproportionate number of 'harmed' patience from these new treatments etc.

However, without the government coming in and regulating medicine entirely, suing for damages done from malpractice can't be removed, but can't be with too strong a bite either.

Paying for Real damages with much less punitive damages. Perhaps?

Which, I believe, is essentially what recent legislation passed by the US Congress does, though it was vehemently opposed by the American Bar Association and many Democrats.

Hey, this is my 1000th post! Yeehaw!