Economic Analysis of Medical Malpractice Liability and Tort Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Medical Malpractice refers to negligence portrayed by a medical professional while providing treatment for a patient where the treatment falls below the accepted standard which leads to potential harm, injury or death to a patient. Standards and regulations of medical malpractice vary by country, but the main idea is the same: the malpractice liability system is usually designed to compensate patients who suffered from bad medical care and to deter negligence by physicians. Ideally, the theory of negligence should lead to appropriate compensation to injured patients and deter physicians from practicing negligently. However experience over the years have been different. Incidents of negligent injury in the USA, for example, have been increasing at an alarming rate, both negative and positive defensive medicine have been on the rise, and malpractice premiums increased sharply. This paper presents an overview of the malpractice system and a survey of the literature on tort reforms and their effects. Both empirical and theoretical results are discussed. The empirical results pertain mostly to the USA due to the ample availability of data that can be analyzed. These studies point to a decrease in health care costs or positive defensive medicine as malpractice pressure decreases. Empirical studies on the effect of negative defensive medicine are rare and also have more mixed conclusions. The empirical studies are based on data sets collected over the years and the findings are therefore restricted to the type of data considered and levels of variations. The theoretical models, on the other hand, offer more insight on negative defensive medicine and are more conclusive; of course within the limitations of the assumptions made while preparing the models. The theoretical models discussed in this paper demonstrate clearly that the practice of both positive and negative defensive medicine can take place. These models offer different predictions on the effect of malpractice pressure on health care spending and quality. Keywords: Medical malpractice, Economic Efficiency, Tort Reform, Econometrics, Empirical Models, Economic Analysis
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".