MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W56309649

The impact of the medical malpractice crisis on OB-GYNs and patients in southern New Jersey.

2003· article· en· W56309649 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Judy Donlen, Janet S Puro

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalpracticeQuarter (Canadian coin)Defensive medicineMedical malpracticeMalpractice insuranceMedicineBusinessFamily medicineDemographic economicsPolitical scienceActuarial scienceEconomicsGeographyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results of this study indicate that the current medical malpractice crisis has created significant insurance affordability and accessibility problems for OB-GYNs in southern New Jersey. Even more important is the result that shows this crisis as beginning to have a very real impact on patient access to care. The average cost for malpractice coverage per physician increased from $34,616.67 in 2000 to $78,818.18 in 2003. This represents a 128% increase in just four years. As dramatic as these premium increases appear, the fact that many physicians have had to reduce their coverage in order to afford any malpractice coverage at all has not yet been taken into account. The increase in premiums particularly affects solo practitioners, such as those practicing in the more rural areas of southern New Jersey, because they are unable to take advantage of the economies of scale that larger practices enjoy. It is also the case that premium increases are even higher for high-risk subspecialties, such as maternal and fetal medicine. Certified nurse midwives are just beginning to see significant increases in their premiums as well. Fourteen point three percent of practices got quotes from three carriers this year, and 12.2% of practices got more than three quotes. This may indicate that there are physicians who are unable to find affordable coverage. More than one quarter of OB-GYN practices (26.5%) reported that their current carrier dropped one or more of the physicians in their practice during the most recent renewal period. Close to half of the practices (49%) that responded to the survey indicated that they came across at least one carrier who refused to provide a quote for liability coverage, while 14% of the practices indicated that more than three carriers refused to provide a quote. This indicates a significant problem with access to coverage. The current malpractice crisis already has had an impact on the way in which physicians practice medicine. Most significant, thirteen practices in the region indicated that at least one of their physicians had stopped delivering babies, two additional practices indicated that they had ceased delivering or caring for high-risk babies, and six practices indicated that at least one of their physicians had ceased performing surgical procedures. There are even more strategies that physicians in southern New Jersey are considering for the near future. Clearly, physicians believe that patient access to care is already a problem in southern New Jersey. If premiums do not stabilize in the very near future, there is every indication that southern New Jersey will have a severe access to care issue for its obstetrical patient population. Unfortunately, a recent report on the nation's medical malpractice insurance crisis predicts at least two more years of continuing financial problems for medical malpractice insurers. Despite the fact that New Jersey's state legislators ended their session without enacting any new tort reform laws, physicians across the state continue to apply pressure for passage of a bill to help the current medical liability crisis. Physicians plan a new round of lobbying and demonstrations beginning October 7, 2003.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207