The issue of malpractice and malpractice insurance is a complex one. It’s like the issue of insuring any perceived risky activity (like diving boards at swimming pools). Sometimes the fear of a lawsuit is so much larger than the facts warrant. That’s because of the few lawsuits that are won by plaintiffs and they get what seem to be unmerited rewards. Perhaps they are unmerited. It’s hard to understand how juries think.
I think most people who are not medical professionals probably don’t appreciate the difficulties of trying to bring people back to expected health. So when a practitioner does make a mistake, and that mistake is a negligent one, or appears to be a negligent one to them, they want to slam the doctor in order to discourage other doctors from making the same mistake.
Yet, in some regions, medical practices keep people just as healthy, but spend a lot less than others. I don’t believe their malpractice insurance rates are any higher than in the areas that practice defensive medicine. That would be an interesting study, come to think of it.
One study found that tort reform has no effect on medical practice or on reduction of health care costs. Another study found that cost and quality of care are unrelated. Other studies appear to show both the same and the opposite. So this is inconclusive.
This doctor argues that defensive medicine actually reduces quality of care. This study also says that defensive medicine has negative consequences sometimes, as does this one.
So, medical malpractice costs are associated with increased defensive medicine and the cost of care, but not with an increase the quality of care.
Overall quality of care, positive or negative, then perhaps does not impact the cost of malpractice insurance premiums.
Malpractice premium reduction does not impact medical care cost in a noticeable way. Caps on awards do seem to reduce premiums, but malpractice attorneys are finding ways around that.
Doctors seem to practice defensive medicine more out of a fear of lawsuits than out of any real likelihood of law suits. Places with lower cost but high quality care may not have reduced malpractice premiums. Thus, we could reduce the cost of health care, by educating doctors that defensive medicine does nothing for their patients, and may even hurt them (leading to greater likelihood of a lawsuit), and it also hurt society overall.
If defensive medicine does not reduce likelihood of suits, nor malpractice premiums, then it is a waste on all fronts and docs shouldn’t do it. Reduction in malpractice premiums therefore won’t necessarily reduce indirect costs, unless it reduces defensive medicine practices. It may reduce defensive medicine, but it may not be the only way to reduce defensive medicine. The other way around: it seems likely that defensive medicine does not reduce malpractice insurance costs.
We can, perhaps, reduce defensive medicine with physician education. Reducing defensive medicine will reduce costs, but not malpractice insurance costs. So, in a way, they are separate issues, yet linked issues.
On a policy basis, we want to eliminate defensive medicine as much as possible. We also want to insure, as best we can, the physicians are not negligent. Physicians want to reduce insurance costs.
There are several ways to go on this, but it seems like we can address society’s issue without necessarily addressing the physicians’ issue.
I’m sorry if this is unclear. I had to work a lot of stuff through, and, as I said, it is complex.