v. 1. Research findings -- v. 2. Concepts and methodology -- v. 3. Implementation issues -- v. 4. Programs, tools and products.

n January 2005, President Bush declared the medical malpractice liability system out of control.The president's speech was merely an echo of what doctors and politicians (mostly Republicans) have been saying for years - that medical malpractice premiums are skyrocketing due to an explosion in malpractice litigation. Along comes Baker, direct...

"Drawing on an unusually rich trove of data, the authors have refuted more politically convenient myths in one book than most academics do in a lifetime." —Nicholas Bagley, professor of law, University of Michigan Law School "Synthesizing decades of their own and others’ research on medical liability, the authors unravel what we know and don’t know about our medical malpractice system, why neither patients nor doctors are being rightly served, and what economics can teach us about the path forward." —Anupam B. Jena, Harvard Medical School Over the past 50 years, the United States experienced three major medical malpractice crises, each marked by dramatic increases in the cost of malpractice liability insurance. These crises fostered a vigorous politicized debate about the causes of the premium spikes, and the impact on access to care and defensive medicine. State legislatures responded to the premium spikes by enacting damages caps on non-economic, punitive, or total damages and Congress has periodically debated the merits of a federal cap on damages. However, the intense political debate has been marked by a shortage of evidence, as well as misstatements and overclaiming. The public is confused about answers to some basic questions. What caused the premium spikes? What effect did tort reform actually have? Did tort reform reduce frivolous litigation? Did tort reform actually improve access to health care or reduce defensive medicine? Both sides in the debate have strong opinions about these matters, but their positions are mostly talking points or are based on anecdotes. Medical Malpractice Litigation provides factual answers to these and other questions about the performance of the med mal system. The authors, all experts in the field and from across the political spectrum, provide an accessible, fact-based response to the questions ordinary Americans and policymakers have about the performance of the med mal litigation system.

How often are patients seriously injured through faulty medical care? And what proportion of these people receive compensation for their injuries and suffering? This is the first book that tries to answer these questions in a careful, scholarly way. Among its important findings is that at most one in ten patients injured through medical negligence receives compensation through the malpractice system. The focus of public attention has been on the rising cost to physicians of malpractice insurance. Although Patricia Danzon analyzes this question thoroughly, her view is much broader, encompassing the malpractice system itself--the legal process, the liability insurance markets, and the feedback to health care. As an economist, she is concerned with the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of the system from the point of view of its three social purposes: deterrence of medical negligence, compensation of injured patients, and the spreading of risk. To provide evidence of the operation of the system in practice, to distinguish fact from allegation, and to evaluate proposals for reform, she has undertaken a detailed empirical analysis of malpractice claims and insurance markets. It is a major contribution to our understanding of how the system works in practice and how it might be improved.

Books such as this one are deceptively difficult to create. The general subject is neither happy, nor easy, nor most anyone’s idea of fun. M- practice litigation, however, has become a central fact of existence in the practice of medicine today. This tsunami of lawsuits has led to a high volume of irreconcilable rhetoric and ultimately threatens the stability of the entire health care system. Our goal has been to provide a source of reliable information on a subject of importance to all who provide me- cal care in the United States. The book is divided into four sections. Part I gives an overview of insurance in general and discusses the organization of professional - ability insurance companies in particular. Part II focuses on the litigation process itself with views from the defense and plaintiff bar, and the physician as both expert and defendant. Part III looks at malpractice litigation from the viewpoint of the practicing physician. Some of the chapters are broadly relevant to all doctors—the rise of e-medicine, and the importance of effective communication, for example. The other ch- ters are constructed around individual medical specialties, but discuss issues that are of potential interest to all. Part IV looks ahead. “The Case for Legal Reform” presents changes in medical-legal jurisprudence that can be of immediate benefit. The final two chapters take a broader perspective on aspects of our entire health care system and its interface with law and public policy.

Many Americans believe that people who lack health insurance somehow get the care they really need. Care Without Coverage examines the real consequences for adults who lack health insurance. The study presents findings in the areas of prevention and screening, cancer, chronic illness, hospital-based care, and general health status. The committee looked at the consequences of being uninsured for people suffering from cancer, diabetes, HIV infection and AIDS, heart and kidney disease, mental illness, traumatic injuries, and heart attacks. It focused on the roughly 30 million-one in seven-working-age Americans without health insurance. This group does not include the population over 65 that is covered by Medicare or the nearly 10 million children who are uninsured in this country. The main findings of the report are that working-age Americans without health insurance are more likely to receive too little medical care and receive it too late; be sicker and die sooner; and receive poorer care when they are in the hospital, even for acute situations like a motor vehicle crash.