defensive medicine
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Illinois Institute Of Technology *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
Medicine
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
8
Uploaded by ConstableBeeMaster768
1
Defensive Medicine: A Case and Review of Its Status and Possible Solutions
Author
Affiliation
Course
Instructor
Due Date
2
Defensive Medicine: A Case and Review of Its Status and Possible Solutions: Article
Summary
The author of the article, Eric D. Katz, examines how malpractice liability systems exist
in part to reimburse victims for their losses brought on by medical malpractice, punish offenders,
and promote the delivery of high-quality healthcare. According to a general definition of
defensive medicine, patient outcomes are less important than the possibility of legal action. One
of the main sources of stress for physicians is worry about malpractice, which is primarily fueled
by the perception that the malpractice system is unjust, burdensome, and ineffective(Katz, 2019).
Physicians frequently overestimate their own risk and the expense of defending themselves, and
their perception of malpractice rarely matches the severity of a state's tort system. Defensive
medicine probably only represents 2.8% of total healthcare spending, although this is difficult to
estimate (Katz, 2019). The phrase "tort reform" is frequently used to promote modifications to
the legal system and defensive tactics. Although most of them are unproven and must all be used
on a state-by-state basis, safe harbors, clinical practice guidelines, comparative blame reform,
lowering plaintiff attorney fees, and apology laws have all been considered workable solutions to
defensive practice.
The article's conclusion points out that although malpractice has some beneficial social
effects, it also stresses doctors and encourages the practice of defensive medicine. As a result,
only about 2.8% of medical expenses go toward helping patients; instead, they are used to settle
legal disputes. Despite being small in comparison, this sum of money is significant. Tort reform's
chances of changing the current system are very slim. Defensive medicine overtaxes the
healthcare system with pointless procedures, costing money and depriving patients who may
require them of care. Most studies show that tort reform, which restricts compensation for
3
malpractice, lowers the frequency and seriousness of malpractice claims. Costs for malpractice
insurance are also reduced.
Defensive medicine is the practice of overtreating patients to protect oneself from
liability for possible negligence. Medical malpractice is a serious issue that has caused countless
patient injuries in the medical field. Such carelessness can leave victims with severe injuries and,
in rare circumstances, fatalities. In the event of a fatality, the next of kin may file a lawsuit for
rights to due process, giving the victims the ability to seek damages. In a claim where they both
have a remote chance of success, the patient and the doctor would be apprehensive about the
case's potential outcome and any liability the court might impose (Katz, 2019). Therefore,
medical professionals will practice defensive medicine to be safe
(Cragle, Strobl, 2022)
.
Actually, defensive medicine is a reaction to the unreliable past of medical malpractice claims
and the unreliable present cost of malpractice insurance in the healthcare industry. Medical
professionals now practice defensive medicine to take the necessary precautions safely and
lessen the likelihood of being confronted or subjected to action.
Most studies reviewed revealed defensive medicine as a common and costly
issue
(Frierson, 2022)
. Doctors only need to adhere to the standards of care necessary for each
patient to avoid malpractice. Tort reform is a contentious issue in this nation. Numerous studies
have been done on this subject, with varying degrees of success. Tort reform is necessary for
some reasons, including the absence of non-economic damages, punitive damages, shortened
statutes of limitations, expert witness requirements, attorney fee ceilings, patient compensation
funds, and no-fault laws.
One of the most severe criticisms of the medical malpractice tort system is the claim that
the defense of medical malpractice cases unnecessarily raises healthcare costs in the United
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
States. Reformers have long argued that the persistent threat of legal action encourages the
practice of defensive medicine (the excessive use of diagnostic tests and medical services to
reduce a physician's liability exposure) and drives up healthcare providers' prices to cover the
costs of rising malpractice insurance premiums. Arguments that medical malpractice tort reform
is the most practical method to stabilize malpractice insurance rates and overall lower healthcare
costs are still divisive in both the legal and medical communities
(Săraru,2018)
. No matter how
successful tort reform is, medical malpractice litigation will always exist.
Each radiology department must focus on reducing risk by creating comprehensive risk
management and compliance program to improve the security and standard of care that its
radiologists and technologists provide. A crucial component of any program is the ongoing
evaluation of the department's quality management practices with a focus on implementing
adjustments were necessary to guarantee patient safety, to guarantee the accurate delivery of
high-quality care, and enable the imaging department to gain and maintain a competitive edge
(Liu, & Hyman, 2020)
. The framework of any risk management and quality and performance
improvement program will surely alter depending on the size of the radiology department or
group. It is generally agreed, however, that any risk management program must, to varying
degrees, implement processes to monitor performance, analyze and depict data, and implement
change. Besides, such a program must comply with regulatory requirements in patient safety,
process implementation and improvement, high-quality and caring customer service, and
professional staff education and assessment.
Defensive medicine can undoubtedly benefit doctors who want to avoid making mistakes
when administering treatments. However, it also results in adverse effects on individuals and the
healthcare system. Defensive medicine may benefit certain doctors financially and personally,
5
but it has unfavorable repercussions on other areas of the medical industry, namely the patients.
Some of these include the inability to obtain appropriate treatments, the decline in treatment
quality, and the increased expense of treatments
(India Brand Equity Foundation, 2018)
. One of
the drawbacks is the inability to obtain appropriate care, which has the unavoidable side effects
of time loss, resource depletion, and improper management of hospital resources. There will be
less necessary treatment, but it will still be accessible to the general public. Demand is still a
high while, at the same time, causing treatment quality to decline. The rising cost of treatment is
the following concern. Most medical professionals choose to practice defensive medicine out of
serious concerns about the possibility of being sued for medical malpractice, which undoubtedly
contributes to the sharp rise in medical costs. As a result, it is clear that during the confusion, the
provision of healthcare services is occasionally overshadowed by other goals. Some medical
professionals would turn to administer those extra, unnecessary treatments to increase profits and
offset rising costs.
A different strategy for medical liability reform would let patients and providers agree in
advance on the guidelines for how patients would be paid if they suffered an injury due to simple
negligence. Contractual responsibility laws may provide more or fewer safeguards than the tort
liability laws already established by the courts and legislators. The contract may also modify the
level of care used to determine negligence
( Liu, Hyman, 2020)
. Alternatively, the agreement
could include more robust safeguards against carelessness than those currently provided by tort
law. Contract liability has economic appeal because competent adults have a range of risk
preferences and financial resources. Health care may become unaffordable for low-income
patients if all patients are required to accept a uniform amount of malpractice protection. In
contrast, others may be forced to "buy" more malpractice insurance than they would like. If
6
physicians have the option to negotiate reduced fees, more low-income patients may be able to
pay for healthcare
(Sasor, & Chung,2020).
It would also cut the cost of care for individuals who
expect less protection from negligence than what tort laws mandate. At the same time, contract
liability would enable patients afraid of taking chances to negotiate for more protection from
carelessness than what is provided by current tort laws.
There are two implications that result when there is uncertainty in the parties' efforts to
prove their separate arguments: defensive medicine and the rise in insurance premiums.
Defensive medicine is frequently used when doctors find themselves in a precarious and
hopeless situation, particularly one that involves rising insurance premium costs and potential
damage to their reputation that could result in them losing their medical licenses in the future.
The patients end up suffering more as a result of this approach. In the end, the burden of proof
shifts to the patient, and it appears that the fight against medical malpractice has reached a dead
end.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
7
References
Katz, E. D. (2019). Defensive medicine: a case and review of its status and possible
solutions.
Clinical Practice and Cases in Emergency Medicine
,
3
(4), 329.
India Brand Equity Foundation. 2018. Healthcare sector growth
trend.
https://www.ibef.org/industry/healthcare-india.aspx. Accessed 15 May 2018
.
Medress, Z. A., Jin, M. C., Feng, A., Varshneya, K., & Veeravagu, A. (2020). Medical
malpractice in spine surgery: a review.
Neurosurgical Focus
,
49
(5), E16.
Agarwal, R., Gupta, A., & Gupta, S. (2019). The impact of tort reform on defensive medicine,
quality of care, and physician supply: A systematic review.
Health services
research
,
54
(4), 851-859.
Frierson, R. L., & Joshi, K. G. (2019). Malpractice law and psychiatry: An
overview.
Focus
,
17
(4), 332-336.
Mello, M. M., Frakes, M. D., Blumenkranz, E., & Studdert, D. M. (2020). Malpractice liability
and health care quality: a review.
Jama
,
323
(4), 352-366.
Liu, J., & Hyman, D. A. (2020). The Impact of Medical Malpractice Reforms.
Annual Review of
Law and Social Science
,
16
, 405-419.
Galey, S. A., Margalit, A., Ain, M. C., & Brooks, J. T. (2019). Medical malpractice in pediatric
orthopaedics: a systematic review of US case law.
Journal of Pediatric
Orthopaedics
,
39
(6), e482-e486.
Frierson, R. L. (2022). The Litigation Process.
Malpractice and Liability in Psychiatry
, 41-46.
Cragle, S. P., & Strobl, G. L. (2022). Malpractice Woes: Here Is What You Should Do if You Get
Sued.
Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America
,
55
(1), 153-160.
8
Săraru, I. C. (2018). Medical malpractice regulation. Civil, administrative, and criminal
liability.
Romanian Journal of Ophthalmology
,
62
(2), 93.
Sasor, S. E., & Chung, K. C. (2020). Litigation in hand surgery: a 30-year review.
Plastic and
Reconstructive Surgery
,
146
(4), 430e-438e.
Jordan, J. E., & Flanders, A. E. (2020). Headache and neuroimaging: why we continue to do
it.
American Journal of Neuroradiology
,
41
(7), 1149-1155.
Viscusi, W. K. (2018). Medical malpractice reform: what works and what doesn't.
Denv. L.
Rev.
,
96
, 775.