The Myth of Litigation-Driven ‘Defensive Medicine’

Following a wave of recent political efforts undertaken by insurance companies and healthcare providers, numerous states enacted harsh limitations on a victim’s ability to seek compensation in the event that they were harmed by the malpractice of a doctor or hospital. The nature of these limitations is unique to the medical field and many members of the public would be surprised to find out just how severe these restrictions are. In many cases, these restrictions are so burdensome that it has become very difficult for victims of medical malpractice to seek justice for their injuries.

One of the arguments advanced by the proponents of these limitations is known as the “defensive medicine” argument. The argument asserts that because doctors are worried about getting sued, they order otherwise unnecessary and costly tests just to protect themselves from a lawsuit. The argument goes that this type of “defensive medicine” drives up costs for everybody and if only doctors and hospitals could be protected from the consequences of their negligence, these costs would go down. However, the link between lawsuits and defensive medicine now appears to be a myth.

A recent study published by the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine looked at emergency rooms costs in Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina; three states that enacted restrictions on their citizens’ ability to hold emergency rooms responsible for acts of negligence. The NEJM report concludes as follows: “Legislation that substantially changed the malpractice standard for emergency physicians in three states had little effect on the intensity of practice, as measured by imaging rates, average charges or hospital admission rates.” That is, the severe limitations on victims’ rights resulted in no significant reduction in emergency room costs. I have long been of the belief that medical care costs are rising for many reasons other than medical malpractice litigation. As a result, it never made sense to me to attempt to contain these costs by severely and significantly limiting the ability of a family to seek justice when their lives had been destroyed by the careless acts of a doctor or hospital. Those who advocated for these restrictions promised cost savings to all, if only healthcare providers were better protected. At least when it comes to the concept of “defensive medicine,” there appears to be good reason to wonder what we gained when we limited victim’s rights.

I hope the legislatures of West Virginia and Ohio will carefully study this issue and take a hard look at what benefits, if any, ordinary citizens received as a result of the damage done to victim’s rights. If it turns out that ordinary citizens received no benefit at all for giving up important rights, we can take the steps necessary to correct these misplaced laws.

 

Following a wave of recent political efforts undertaken by insurance companies and healthcare providers, numerous states enacted harsh limitations on a victim’s ability to seek compensation in the event that they were harmed by the malpractice of a doctor or hospital. The nature of these limitations is unique to the medical field and many members of the public would be surprised to find out just how severe these restrictions are. In many cases, these restrictions are so burdensome that it has become very difficult for victims of medical malpractice to seek justice for their injuries.

Posted in Know the Law | No Comments »