Teamwork in health care and medical malpractice liability: an experimental investigation

European Journal of Law and Economics - The treatment of a patient often implies consultations with different health care professionals. This complex health care pathway raises the issue of the...     

Special report on health care delivery systems. Trends in the integrated delivery of health care and the corporate practice of medicine

The prospects for federal legislation preempting state corporate practice restrictions are unclear. The health care reform bill originally introduced by President Clinton contained a provision that would have preempted "any state law related to the corporate practice of medicine" insofar as it applied to the arrangements between non-fee-for-service health plans and their participating providers. H.R. 3600/S. 1757, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 1407(b) (1993). Whether and in what form a preemption provision may survive the legislative process and see a Presidential signature remains to be seen. The particular fate of the federal legislation notwithstanding, however, health care executives can nevertheless remain confident that the legal treatment of the "corporate practice" of medicine will continue to be of vital concern as the various forms of health care organizations evolve in the ongoing struggle to deliver quality medicine at affordable prices.     

Medical liability and health care reform

We examine the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on medical liability and the controversy over whether federal medical reform including a damages cap could make a useful contribution to health care reform. By providing guaranteed access to health care insurance at community rates, the ACA could reduce the problem of under-compensation resulting from damages caps. However, it may also exacerbate the problem of under-claiming in the malpractice system, thereby reducing incentives to invest in loss prevention activities. Shifting losses from liability insurers to health insurers could further undermine the already weak deterrent effect of the medical liability system. Republicans in Congress and physician groups both pushed for the adoption of a federal damages cap as part of health care reform. Physician support for damages caps could be explained by concerns about the insurance cycle and the consequent instability of the market. Our own study presented here suggests that there is greater insurance market stability in states with caps on non-economic damages. Republicans in Congress argued that the enactment of damages caps would reduce aggregate health care costs. The Congressional Budget Office included savings from reduced health care utilization in its estimates of cost savings that would result from the enactment of a federal damages cap. But notwithstanding recent opinions offered by the CBO, it is not clear that caps will significantly reduce health care costs or that any savings will be passed on to consumers. The ACA included funding for state level demonstration projects for promising reforms such as offer and disclosure and health courts, but at this time the benefits of these reforms are also uncertain. There is a need for further studies on these issues.     

医疗纠纷中篡改病历相关法律责任研究

病历是医院最常见的文书之一。在法律上,病历也充当着重要的证据作用。在医疗纠纷中,病历是一把双刃剑,高质量的病历可以是医务人员的保护伞,反之则会是其最大的敌人。但是在医务人员在医疗纠纷中篡改病历的现象并不少见。关于篡改的病历的证据作用以及对相关人员的处理,国内外学者存在着不同的认识。     

Reimbursement schemes for hospitals, malpractice liability, and intrinsic motivation

We develop a simple multi-task principal-agent model to analyze the interplay between optimal reimbursement schemes for hospitals and liability rules (basic model). We then extend our model and assume that the hospital is intrinsically motivated to exert positive effort for quality and cost reduction. This effort, however, is biased towards quality. Moreover, the intrinsic motivation may be crowded out by monetary incentives. In such a setting, we find that a pure prospective payment system (PPS) that has become widespread in recent years can only be optimal in the unlikely case where malpractice liability holds hospitals fully responsible for expected harm. For other cases, we confirm the prejudice that PPS may lead to inefficiently low quality. Then, the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) system is superior if the intrinsic motivation is high and relatively little biased towards quality, whereas mixed systems should be chosen otherwise. Our model sheds light on why countries like the USA with a tough liability system haven been less reluctant to switch from FFS to PPS than Germany, for instance.     

Researcher liability for negligence in human subject research: informed consent and researcher malpractice actions

Two sets of federal regulations, the "Common Rule" and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, govern human subject research that is either federally-funded or involves FDA regulated products. These regulations require, inter alia, that: (1) researchers obtain informed consent from human subjects, and (2) that an Institutional Review Board (IRB) independently review and approve the research protocol. Although the federal regulations do not provide an express cause of action against researchers, research subjects should be able to bring informed consent and malpractice actions against researchers by establishing a duty of care and standard of care. Researchers owe human subjects a duty of care analogous to the special relationship between physicians and patients. The federal regulations should provide the minimum standard of care for informed consent in human subject research, and complying with them should be a partial defense. In contrast, expert testimony should establish the standard of care for researcher malpractice, and IRB approval should be a partial defense.