Explore the vast range of titles available.

Concerns about reducing the rate of growth of health expenditures have reignited interest in medical liability reforms and their potential to save money by reducing the practice of defensive medicine. It is not easy to estimate the costs of the medical liability system, however. This article identifies the various components of liability system costs, generates national estimates for each component, and discusses the level of evidence available to support the estimates. Overall annual medical liability system costs, including defensive medicine, are estimated to be $55.6 billion in 2008 dollars, or 2.4 percent of total health care spending.

Concern over rising healthcare expenditures has led to increased scrutiny of medical practices. As medical liability and malpractice risk rise to crisis levels, the medical-legal environment has contributed to the practice of defensive medicine as practitioners attempt to mitigate liability risk. High-risk specialties, such as neurosurgery, are particularly affected and neurosurgeons have altered their practices to lessen medical-legal risk. We present the first national survey of American neurosurgeons' perceptions of malpractice liability and defensive medicine practices. A validated, 51-question online-survey was sent to 3344 practicing U.S. neurosurgeon members of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, which represents 76% of neurosurgeons in academic and private practices. A total of 1028 surveys were completed (31% response rate) by neurosurgeons representing diverse sub-specialty practices. Respondents engaged in defensive medicine practices by ordering additional imaging studies (72%), laboratory tests (67%), referring patients to consultants (66%), or prescribing medications (40%). Malpractice premiums were considered a \"major or extreme\" burden by 64% of respondents which resulted in 45% of respondents eliminating high-risk procedures from their practice due to liability concerns. Concerns and perceptions about medical liability lead practitioners to practice defensive medicine. As a result, diagnostic testing, consultations and imaging studies are ordered to satisfy a perceived legal risk, resulting in higher healthcare expenditures. To minimize malpractice risk, some neurosurgeons have eliminated high-risk procedures. Left unchecked, concerns over medical liability will further defensive medicine practices, limit patient access to care, and increase the cost of healthcare delivery in the United States.

The role of defensive medicine in driving up health care costs is hotly contended. Physicians and health policy experts in particular tend to have sharply divergent views on the subject. Physicians argue that defensive medicine is a significant driver of health care cost inflation. Policy analysts, on the other hand, observe that malpractice reform, by itself, will probably not do much to reduce costs. We argue that both answers are incomplete. Ultimately, malpractice reform is a necessary but insufficient component of medical cost containment. The evidence suggests that defensive medicine accounts for a small but non-negligible fraction of health care costs. Yet the traditional medical malpractice reforms that many physicians desire will not assuage the various pressures that lead providers to overprescribe and overtreat. These reforms may, nevertheless, be necessary to persuade physicians to accept necessary changes in their practice patterns as part of the larger changes to the health care payment and delivery systems that cost containment requires.

Objective To identify the prevalence of the practice of defensive medicine among Italian hospital physicians, its costs and the reasons for practising defensive medicine and possible solutions to reduce the practice of defensive medicine. Methods Cross-sectional web survey. Main outcome measures Number of physicians reporting having engaged in any defensive medicine behaviour in the previous year. Results A total of 1313 physicians completed the survey. Ninety-five per cent believed that defensive medicine would increase in the near future. The practice of defensive medicine accounted for approximately 10% of total annual Italian national health expenditure. Conclusions Defensive medicine is a significant factor in health care costs without adding any benefit to patients. The economic burden of defensive medicine on health care systems should provide a substantial stimulus for a prompt review of this situation in a time of economic crisis. Malpractice reform, together with a systematic use of evidence-based clinical guidelines, is likely to be the most effective way to reduce defensive medicine.

Under value-based payment models, there is a misalignment between organizations’ incentives to spend wisely and individual physicians’ incentives to reduce malpractice liability risk. One idea that has been proposed to correct this mismatch is enterprise liability.

Defensive medicine is estimated to cost the United States $210 billion annually. Trauma surgeons are at risk of practicing defensive medicine in the form of reflexively ordering computed tomography (CT) scans. The aim of this study is to quantify the monetary impact and radiation exposure related to the radiographic workup of trauma patients. We conducted a prospective, observational study involving 295 trauma patients at Level I trauma center. Physicians were surveyed regarding specific CT scans ordered, likelihood of significant injuries found on scans, and which scans would have been ordered in a hypothetical, litigation-free environment. Four hundred sixteen of 1,097 CT scans (38%) were ordered out of defensive purposes. Nine CT scans (2.2%) that would not have been ordered resulted in a change in management. Defensively ordered CT scans resulted in nearly $120,000 in excess charges and 8.8 mSv of unnecessary radiation per patient. Defensively ordered CT scan in the workup of trauma patients is a prevalent and costly practice that exposes patients to potentially unnecessary and harmful radiation. •Prospective, observational study characterizing defensive medicine in the workup of trauma patients.•Reflexively ordered CT scans in trauma activation patients are a prevalent and costly practice.•These scans also expose patients to potentially unnecessary and harmful radiation.

This Health Policy Report describes the malpractice system in the United States, examines its shortcomings, and analyzes the forces that have led to past and current malpractice crises. The authors review options for reform of the U.S. malpractice system. Conventional tort reforms include caps on damages, limits on attorneys' fees, and shortening of the statute of limitations. Experts have also proposed major system reforms, such as enterprise liability or administrative compensation. Options for reform of the American malpractice system. Few issues in health care spark as much ire and angst as medical-malpractice litigation. Physicians revile malpractice claims as random events that visit unwarranted expense and emotional pain on competent, hardworking practitioners. Commentators lament the “lawsuit lottery,” which provides windfalls for some patients, but no compensation for the vast majority of patients injured by medical care. 1 , 2 Within the health care industry, there is a nearly universal belief that malpractice litigation has long since surpassed sensible levels and that major tort reform is overdue. Yet the drive to litigate continues. Plaintiffs' attorneys and some consumer groups interpret providers' grievances as . . .

Although the direct costs of the medical liability system account for a small fraction of total health spending, the system's indirect effects on cost and quality of care can be much more important. Here, we summarise findings of existing research on the effects of the medical liability systems of Australia, the UK, and the USA. We find systematic evidence of defensive medicine—medical practice based on fear of legal liability rather than on patients' best interests. We conclude with discussion of four avenues for reform of traditional tort compensation for medical injury and several suggestions for future research.