Skip to main content

602-648-3200

888-683-6835

Call us toll free

Those who favor radical changes in the way health care professionals are held accountable for medical malpractice often claim that frivolous lawsuits lead to wasteful spending on defensive medicine – care provided solely to protect against claims of medical negligence. Well, a group of researchers led by Daniel Waxman, M.D., Ph.D. at UCLA Health wanted to see if tort reform legislation enacted to protect emergency medicine physicians and others working in emergency departments had the intended effect.  A description of the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine can be found here.

The researchers studied all emergency department visits from 1997-2011 in three states (Texas, Georgia and South Carolina) where the conduct required to be proven to prevail in a medical negligence case was elevated from ordinary negligence to gross negligence.  They found that such reforms had no effect on the intensity of care or rate of hospital admissions.  They also found no reduction in the charges per admission in two states and a 3.6% reduction in the other.  Translation: defensive medicine is a myth – at least in an emergency department setting.

So, what does this mean?  Well, it is yet another in an ongoing series of peer-reviewed studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine and other journals published by and for the benefit of the medical community (many of which I have commented on previously in this blog) which continue to erode the widely held belief that holding health care professionals accountable for mistakes is bad for everyone, negatively impacts the cost and practice of medicine, and leads to poor medical care.  Next time you hear someone claim tort reform will cut down the practice of “defensive medicine,” ask them if they have a reliable, objective authority, like the New England Journal of Medicine, which says so.  They won’t.

Posted in:
Uncategorized

Leave a Reply