DOCSLIB.ORG

Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice July 1994 OTA-H-602 NTIS order #PB94-193257 GPO stock #052-003-01377-1 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice, OTA-H--6O2 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1994). Foreword he medical malpractice system has frequently been cited as a contributor to increasing health care costs and has been targeted in many health care reform proposals as a potential source of T savings. The medical malpractice system can add to the costs of health care directly through increases in malpractice insurance pre- miums, which may be passed on to consumers and third–party payers in the form of higher fees. However, total direct costs of the medical mal- practice system represent less than 1 percent of overall health care costs in the United States. The medical malpractice system may also increase costs indirectly by encouraging physicians to practice defensive medicine. In this assess- ment, the Office of Technology Assessment first examines the nature of defensive medicine, adopting a working definition of defensive medi- cine that embraces the complexity of the problem from both the physi- cian and broader public policy perspectives. It then presents and critical- ly examines existing as well as new evidence on the extent of defensive medicine. Finally, it comments on the potential impact of a variety of medical malpractice reforms on the practice of defensive medicine. This assessment was prepared in response to a request by the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The report was prepared by OTA staff, but OTA gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the assessment advisory panel, numerous researchers who did work under contract to OTA, and many other individuals who provided valuable information and re- viewed preliminary drafts. As with all OTA documents, the final respon- sibility for the content of the assessment rests with OTA. Director Advisory Panel R. Randall Bovbjerg Richard Frank Barry Manuel Panel Chair Professor Associate Dean Senior Research Associate Department of Health Policy and Boston University College of The Urban Institute Management Medicine Washington, DC School of Hygiene and Public Boston, MA Health John Ball The Johns Hopkins University J. Douglas Peters Executive Vice President Baltimore, MD Charfoos and Christensen American College of Physicians Attorneys at Law Philadelphia, PA Pamela Gilbert Detroit, MI D irector James Blumstein Public Citizen Congress Watch Richmond Prescott Professor of Law Washington, DC Former Associate Executive Vanderbilt University Law School Director Nashville, TN Rodney Hayward The Permanante Medical Group, Assistant Professor Inc. Troyen Brennan Department of Internal Medicine San Francisco, CA Associate Professor University of Michigan School of Department of Medicine Medicine David Sundwall Harvard Medical School Ann Arbor, MI Vice president and Medical Director Boston, MA American Healthcare Systems Richard Kravitz Institute Brad Cohn Assistant Professor of Medicine Washington, DC President University of California, Davis Physician Insurers Association of Sacramento, CA Laurence Tancredi America Private Consultant San Francisco, CA George Malkasian Ncw York, NY Department of Obstetrics and Edward David Gynecology James Todd Chairman Mayo Clinic Executive Vice President Maine Board of Registration in Rochester, MN American Medical Association Medicine Chicago, IL Bangor, ME Note: OTA appreciatess and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does not. however-, necessarily disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes fu!l responsibility for the rcport and the accuracy of its contents. iv Preject Staff Clyde J. Behney PROJECT STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Assistant Director, OTA Judith L. Wagner Beckie Erickson Project Director Office Administrator Sean R. Tunis Health Program Director Jacqueline A. Corrigan Daniel B. Carson Scnior Analyst P.C. Specialist David Klingman Carolyn Martin Senior Analyst Word Processing Specialist Leah Wolfe Analyst Philip T. Polishuk Research Analyst PRINCIPAL CONSULTANTS Russell Localio Jeremy Sugarman Pcnnsylvania State University Duke University CONTRACTORS Laura-Mae Baldwin Pony Ehrenhaft Gloria Ruby University of Washington Consultant Consultant Kevin Grumbach Mark Hall Peter Glassman University of California/San Wake Forest School of Law RAND Francisco Peter Jacobson Harold S. Luft RAND Eleanor Kinney University of California/San Indiana Univcrsity Francisco Thomas Metzloff Duke University Laura Morlock John Rolph The Johns Hopkins Univcrsity RAND John Rosenquist University of California/Davis v c ontents 1 Findings and Policy Options 1 Defining Defining Defensive Medicine 3 The Extent of Dcfcnsive Medicine 3 Recent Factors Affecting the Amount of Defensive Medicine 9 The Impact of’ Malpractice Reform on Defensive Medicine 10 Defensive Medicine in an Era of Health Care Reform 15 Policy Options 16 2 Defensive Medicine: Definition and Causes 21 Defining Defensive Medicine 21 The Sources of Defensive Medicine 26 Conclusions 36 3 Summary of the Evidence on Defensive Medicine 39 Evidcncc of the Extent of Defensive Medicine 43 Conclusions” 74 4 Impact of Malpractice Reform on Defensive Medicine 75 The Impact of Conventional Malpractice Reforms on Direct Malpractice Costs 76 Impact of Newer Malpractice Reformas on Defensive I I Medicine 81 Defensive Medicine and Health Care Reform 91 Conclusions 92 APPENDIXES A Method of Study 95 B Acknowledgments 101 c The Impact of Nonclinical Factors on Physicians’ Use of Resources 104 D Methods Used in the OTA Clinical Scenario Surveys 106 E Detailed Results of the OTA Clinical Scenario Surveys 118 F Estimates of the Costs of Selected Defensive Medical Procedures 128 G Summary of State Studies on Tort Reforms 133 H Clinical Practice Guidelines and Malpractice Liability 140 I Description of 32 Direct Physician Surveys of Defensive Medicine Reviewed by OTA 149 J Detailed Critique of Reynolds et al. and Lewin-VHl Estimates 154 K Glossary 160 REFERENCES 165 INDEX 179 Findings and Policy Options 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . Defensive medicine occurs when doctors order tests, proce- dures, or visits, or avoid certain high-risk patients or proce- dures, primarily (but not necessarily solely) because of con- cern about malpractice liability. ● Most defensive medicine is not of zero benefit. Instead, fear of liability pushes physicians’ tolerance for medical uncertain- ty to low levels, where the expected benefits are very small and the costs are high. ● Many physicians say they would order aggressive diagnostic procedures in cases where conservative management is con- sidered medically acceptable by professional expert panels. Most physicians who practice in this manner would do so pri- marily because they believe such procedures are medically indicated, not primarily because of concerns about liability. ■ It is impossible to accurately measure the overall level and na- tional cost of defensive medicine. The best that can be done is to develop a rough estimate of the upper limits of the extent of certain components of defensive medicine. Overall, a small percentage of diagnostic procedures--certain- ly less than 8 percent—is likely to be caused primarily by conscious concern about malpractice liability. This estimate is based on physicians’ responses to hypothetical clinical scenarios that were designed to be malpractice-sensitive; hence, it overestimates the rate at which defensive medicine is consciously practiced in diagnostic situations. 2 | Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice INTRODUCTION For more than two decades many physicians. re- searchers, and government officials have claimed that the most damaging and costly result of the medical malpractice system as it has evolved in ■ Physicians are very conscious of the risk of be- the United States is the practice of defensive medi- ing sued and tend to overestimate that risk. A cine: the ordering of tests, procedures, and visits, large number of physicians believe that being or avoidance of certain procedures or patients, due sued will adversely affect their professional, to concern about malpractice liability risk. financial. and emotional status. Calls for reform of the medical malpractice sys- tem have rested partly on arguments that such re- ■ The role of the malpractice system as a deterrent against too little or poor-quality care--one of forms would save health care costs by reducing its intended purposes—has not been careful- doctors’ incentives to practice defensively. Such ly studied. an argument even found its way into the 1992 presidential debates, when President Bush con- tended that “the malpractice ...trial lawyers’ law- suits ...are running the costs of medical care up $25 to $50 billion.’” (35) Such claims notwithstanding, the extent of de- fensive medicine and its impact on health care costs remain a matter of controversy. Some critics claim that defensive medicine is nothing more than a convenient explanation for practices that physicians would engage in even if there were no malpractice law or malpractice lawyers. This Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) ■ One malpractice reform that directly targets study of defensive medicine grew out of congres- wasteful and low-benefit defensive medicine sional interest in understanding the extent to is to enhance the evidentiary status in mal- which
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona Pain and Addiction Curriculum Faculty Guide
    THE ARIZONA PAIN AND ADDICTION CURRICULUM FACULTY GUIDE UNDERGRADUATE HEALTH PROFESSIONAL EDITION 1 THE ARIZONA PAIN AND ADDICTION CURRICULUM FACULTY GUIDE | azhealth.gov/curriculum September 1, 2018 Dear Teaching Faculty: It is our pleasure to offer this Faculty Guide as a supplement to The Arizona Pain and Addiction Curriculum. Whether your program is educating future physicians, nurses, physician-assistants, dentists, naturopathic doctors or podiatrists – this Faculty Guide can be used to enhance the statewide vision of redefining pain and addiction. The essence of the curriculum rests with its ten Core Components – this Faculty Guide provides a further level of detail under each Component and Objective. As colleagues in health care, we understand that this material represents a significant change from the way we were taught about pain and addiction – or the way we were taught about medicine at all. This curriculum moves from a micro- to a macro- perspective, stressing whole-person care and the societal impact of pain and addiction. It reflects the interrelated nature of pain and addiction – two areas that have been traditionally siloed. It specifically calls for clinicians to be able to critically analyze material, their own practices, and their own biases. The approach to pain and addiction is advancing rapidly. The material in this Faculty Guide is aggressively up-to-date and evidence-based, yet remains in line with the National Pain Strategy, the Institute of Medicine and modern educational theories. As our understanding of pain and addiction changes, so too will this document. We are proud to have worked with programs’ leadership to develop this curriculum and are now excited to work with you to bring it to Arizona learners.
    [Show full text]
  • Malpractice and Emergency Medicine Walter Kuhn, M.D., FACEP
    Malpractice and Emergency Medicine Walter Kuhn, M.D., FACEP Every Emergency Physician fears being sued. Unfortunately, the practice of Emergency Medicine is high risk and malpractice claims stemming from emergency care number about 20% of all claims occurring in hospitals. The Emergency Department is the third riskiest area of the hospital following the operating room and the delivery suite. Malpractice premiums paid by Emergency Physicians have risen dramatically over the last years with a 200 % rise in some States. Lawsuits against Emergency Physicians are not nuisance claims: more than half of legitimate claims involve serious disability or death. Surprisingly, the big payoffs do not go for the missed hard-to-diagnose Zebra conditions. They come from missed bread-and-butter cases such as missed M.I., ectopic pregnancy, appendicitis, meningitis, missed fractures and soft tissue foreign bodies. Half of all patients who file successful lawsuits met standard criteria for hospital admission, yet serious illness was not even considered by the Emergency Physician. As is often said, it is not the one you anticipate that gets you into trouble, but the one you never expect. In other words, if you knew or thought that a patient would have a bad outcome, you would have instituted means to protect both your patient and yourself. Understanding the Law There are two major bodies of legal action; criminal and civil. A criminal action is one in which the state or government sues an individual for a wrongdoing considered against public interest. Examples are murder, rape, theft etc. These are not usually the kind of suits brought against the Emergency Physician unless the physician willfully injured a patient (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Minor's Personal Injury Actions and Settlements in North Carolina John M
    Campbell Law Review Volume 34 Article 3 Issue 2 Spring 2012 2012 Minor's Personal Injury Actions and Settlements in North Carolina John M. Kirby Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr Part of the Judges Commons, Juvenile Law Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation John M. Kirby, Minor's Personal Injury Actions and Settlements in North Carolina, 34 Campbell L. Rev. 293 (2012). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Campbell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. KIRBY- FINAL 4/12/2012 9:06 AM Kirby: Minor's Personal Injury Actions and Settlements in North Carolina Minor’s Personal Injury Actions and Settlements in North Carolina JOHN KIRBY INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 295 I.SUBSTANCE OF THE CLAIMS ARISING FROM INJURY TO MINOR ............... 296 A. Minor’s Claims ...................................................................... 296 1. Substantive Claims .......................................................... 296 a. Landowner Liability .................................................. 297 i. Attractive Nuisance Doctrine ............................. 301 b. Minor’s Claims Against Caregivers and Other Persons ...................................................................... 305
    [Show full text]
  • Compensating Post-Conception Prenatal Medical Malpractice While Respecting Life: a Recommendation to North Carolina Legislators Michelle Mcentire
    Campbell Law Review Volume 29 Article 8 Issue 3 Spring 2007 April 2007 Compensating Post-Conception Prenatal Medical Malpractice While Respecting Life: A Recommendation to North Carolina Legislators Michelle McEntire Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Michelle McEntire, Compensating Post-Conception Prenatal Medical Malpractice While Respecting Life: A Recommendation to North Carolina Legislators, 29 Campbell L. Rev. 761 (2007). This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Campbell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. McEntire: Compensating Post-Conception Prenatal Medical Malpractice While R Compensating Post-Conception Prenatal Medical Malpractice While Respecting Life: A Recommendation to North Carolina Legislators INTRODUCTION I don't care if it's a boy or a girl, as long as it's healthy. It is the mantra of almost all expectant parents. The statement explicitly expresses the hope for a healthy child and implicitly expresses the desire not to bear a child with birth defects or disease. Modern medicine allows parents to test themselves before conception for genetic problems that could cause defects and to test the fetus after conception for potential or actual defects.1 Approximately 3% to 5% of all fetuses will be affected by a birth defect or serious malforma- tion.2 These defects and disorders account for approximately 30% of infant deaths, and those infants who survive usually face long-term health problems.3 With the advent of prenatal diagnostic procedures came the inevi- table entanglement with abortion rights after Roe v.
    [Show full text]
  • Retaliatory RICO and the Puzzle of Fraudulent Claiming
    Michigan Law Review Volume 115 Issue 5 2017 Retaliatory RICO and the Puzzle of Fraudulent Claiming Nora Freeman Engstrom Stanford Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Litigation Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Nora Freeman Engstrom, Retaliatory RICO and the Puzzle of Fraudulent Claiming, 115 MICH. L. REV. 639 (2017). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol115/iss5/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RETALIATORY RICO AND THE PUZZLE OF FRAUDULENT CLAIMING Nora Freeman Engstrom* Over the past century, the allegation that the tort liability system incentivizes legal extortion and is chock-full of fraudulent claims has dominated public discussion and prompted lawmakers to ever-more-creatively curtail individu- als’ incentives and opportunities to seek redress. Unsatisfied with these con- ventional efforts, in recent years, at least a dozen corporate defendants have “discovered” a new fraud-fighting tool. They’ve started filing retaliatory RICO suits against plaintiffs and their lawyers and experts, alleging that the initia- tion of certain nonmeritorious litigation constitutes racketeering activity— while tort reform advocates have applauded these efforts and exhorted more “courageous” companies to follow suit. Curiously, though, all of this has taken place against a virtual empirical void. Is the tort liability system actually brimming with fraudulent claims? No one knows.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview on High Health Care Costs in the US, Overdiagnosis, and Health Care Value
    An Overview on High Health Care Costs in the US, Overdiagnosis, and Health Care Value Michael Tjahjadi, M.D. James Stallworth, M.D. Disclosures Neither Dr. Tjahjadi nor Dr. Stallworth has any financial incentives or relationships to disclose. The Healthcare System of the US We may have heard the phrases: Our healthcare system is broken Our spending in healthcare is unsustainable The US spends 2.5 times as much on health care as peer nations Yet some US outcomes trail peer nations Highest infant mortality rate Highest obesity rate US worst among high income countries when measured by specific population health outcomes Fairbrother et al, Pediatrics, June 2015 Ice-Breaker Question Is it too conflictual to ask clinicians to be cost-conscious and at the same time keep the welfare of the patient foremost in their minds? Yes No It depends Illustrative Case #1 15 year old AA male with SS trait presents with a 20 pound weight loss over 3 months despite an “ok” appetite. No change in bowel habits, no fever. He denies sexual activity and drug use, no history of blood transfusions and no other symptoms. He denies being depressed. On PE, he is quite thin with decreased subcutaneous tissue. His VS are stable but a HR of 110. He has no thrush, lymphadenopathy or HSM. He is Tanner 3. His exam is otherwise non revealing. From a health care value perspective, would you order an HIV? Illustrative Case #2 In June, a 22 mo previously healthy child presents with a 2 day history of diarrhea, 1 day of which is now bloody.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth About Torts: Defensive Medicine and the Unsupported Case for Medical Malpractice ‘Reform’
    The Truth About Torts: Defensive Medicine and the Unsupported Case for Medical Malpractice ‘Reform’ By CPR Member Scholars Sidney Shapiro and Thomas McGarity, and CPR Policy Analysts Nicholas Vidargas and James Goodwin Center for Progressive Reform CENTER FOR PROGRESSIVE REFORM WHITE PAPER #1203 February 2012 About the Center for Progressive Reform Founded in 2002, the Center for Progressive Reform is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit research and educational organization comprising a network of scholars across the nation dedicated to protecting health, safety, and the environment through analysis and commentary. CPR believes sensible safeguards in these areas serve important shared values, including doing the best we can to prevent harm to people and the environment, distributing environmental harms and benefits fairly, and protecting the earth for future generations. CPR rejects the view that the economic efficiency of private markets should be the only value used to guide government action. Rather, CPR supports thoughtful government action and reform to advance the well-being of human life and the environment. Additionally, CPR believes people play a crucial role in ensuring both private and public sector decisions that result in improved protection of consumers, public health and safety, and the environment. Accordingly, CPR supports ready public access to the courts, enhanced public participation and improved public access to information. The Center for Progressive Reform is grateful to the American Association for Justice for funding this report, as well as to the Bauman Foundation, the Deer Creek Foundation, and the Open Society Institute for their generous support of its work in general. This white paper is a collaborative effort of the following Member Scholars and staff of the Center for Progressive Reform: Sidney Shapiro holds the University Distinguished Chair in Law at the Wake Forest University School of Law, is the Associate Dean for Research and Development, and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Center for Progressive Reform.
    [Show full text]
  • Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice
    ECONOMIC AND BUDGET ISSUE BRIEF A series of issue summaries from the Congressional Budget Office CBO JANUARY 8, 2004 Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice The past few years have seen a sharp increase in premi- allow evidence of any benefits that plaintiffs collect from ums for medical malpractice liability insurance, which other sources (such as their insurance) to be admitted at health care professionals buy to protect themselves from trial. Limits of one kind or another on liability for mal- the costs of being sued (see Figure 1 on page 2). On aver- practice injuries, or “torts,” are relatively common at the age, premiums for all physicians nationwide rose by 15 state level: more than 40 states had at least one restriction percent between 2000 and 2002—nearly twice as fast as in effect in 2002.2 total health care spending per person. The increases dur- Evidence from the states indicates that premiums for mal- ing that period were even more dramatic for certain spe- practice insurance are lower when tort liability is re- cialties: 22 percent for obstetricians/gynecologists and 33 stricted than they would be otherwise. But even large sav- percent for internists and general surgeons.1 (For a defini- ings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on tion of malpractice and other terms used in this brief, see health care spending—private or governmental—because Box 1 on page 3). malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that 3 The available evidence suggests that premiums have risen spending. Advocates or opponents cite other possible ef- both because insurance companies have faced increased fects of limiting tort liability, such as reducing the extent costs to pay claims (from growth in malpractice awards) to which physicians practice “defensive medicine” by con- and because of reduced income from their investments ducting excessive procedures; preventing widespread and short-term factors in the insurance market.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Clinicians Overtest: Development of a Thematic Framework
    Why clinicians overtest: development of a thematic framework Justin H Lam ( [email protected] ) The University of Sydney https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6076-3999 Kristen Pickles The University of Sydney Fiona Stanaway The University of Sydney Katy JL Bell The University of Sydney Research article Keywords: medical overuse, health service misuse, overtest, overtesting, clinician Posted Date: October 12th, 2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-43690/v2 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Version of Record: A version of this preprint was published on November 4th, 2020. See the published version at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05844-9. Page 1/36 Abstract Background: Medical tests provide important information to guide clinical management. Overtesting, however, may cause harm to patients and the healthcare system, including through misdiagnosis, false positives, false negatives and overdiagnosis. Clinicians are ultimately responsible for test requests, and are therefore ideally positioned to prevent overtesting and its unintended consequences. Through this narrative literature review and workshop discussion with experts at the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference (Sydney, 2019), we aimed to identify and establish a thematic framework of factors that inuence clinicians to request non-recommended and unnecessary tests. Methods: Articles exploring factors affecting clinician test ordering behaviour were identied through a systematic search of MedLine in April 2019, forward and backward citation searches and content experts. Two authors screened abstract titles and abstracts, and two authors screened full text for inclusion. Identied factors were categorised into a preliminary framework which was subsequently presented at the PODC for iterative development.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumers Win on Product Liability
    Consumers Win on Product Liability Senator Ernest F. "Fritz" Hollings (D-SC) differing views on proposals to establish Exon, who was hospitalized, was one of crafted a major upset victory for alternative compensation systems which the senators whose proxies Hollings pro- American consumers when his lead- would reduce the need for lawsuits. duced in his masterful strategic victory. ership blocked anti-consumer product liabili- Senators Slade Gorton (R-WA) and Christo- "The bill is not dead," says Kimmelman, ty legislation in the Senate Commerce, pher Dodd (D-CN) have proposed that an "but the committee vote is both a fantastic Science and Technology Committee. administrative procedure be established victory for victims and a significant set- Hollings' masterful strategy surprised the whereby persons injured by defective prod- back to those who would impede recovery proponents of S. 100 and denied a majority ucts could recover damages directly from for injuries caused by defective products to the bill, which would wipe out essential the manufacturer without going to court. and reduce incentives to manufacture safe consumer protections contained in current Damages, however, would be limited to costs ones—both of which S. 100 would do." state product liability laws. such as lost wages and medical care, pro- Kimmelman characterized the commit- In recognition of his role in a victory hibiting payments for pain and suffering tee vote as a "major embarrassment" for that was totally unforeseen, Hollings will or punitive damages. business representatives who were clearly receive a special Distinguished Public In seeking votes for S. 100, Danforth "outfoxed" by Hollings. Service Award at Consumer Federation of promised hearings on the latter proposals "The momentum is now going against America's 15th annual Awards Dinner on before attempting to bring the Kasten bill the business alliance which had already June 19.
    [Show full text]
  • A Physician's Perspective on the Medical Malpractice Crisis Amanda Craig Loyola University Chicago, School of Law
    Annals of Health Law Volume 13 Article 18 Issue 2 Summer 2004 2004 A Physician's Perspective on the Medical Malpractice Crisis Amanda Craig Loyola University Chicago, School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/annals Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons Recommended Citation Amanda Craig A Physician's Perspective on the Medical Malpractice Crisis, 13 Annals Health L. 623 (2004). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/annals/vol13/iss2/18 This Colloquium is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Annals of Health Law by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Craig: A Physician's Perspective on the Medical Malpractice Crisis A Physician's Perspective on the Medical Malpractice Crisis Introduction by Amanda Craig* Dr. Joseph L. Murphy has practiced medicine in the Chicago area since he graduated from Loyola Stritch School of Medicine in 1965.1 Upon completion of his residency and internship at St. Joseph Hospital, Dr. Murphy joined the staff in 1969.2 Dr. Murphy is in private practice specializing in general internal medicine and geriatric medicine. He currently serves as President of the Medical Staff and Chair of the Medical Executive Committee at St. Joseph Hospital.3 Dr. Murphy is a Board Member, Fellow and Chair of the Membership Committee of the Institute of Medicine of Chicago, and a member of the House of Delegates for both the American Medical Association (AMA) and Illinois State Medical Society. He is also active in the Chicago Medical Society, American College of Physicians, American Geriatric Society, and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations' Professional Technical Advisory Committee on Long Term Care.
    [Show full text]
  • July 21 ,2020 Honorable Edward Markey
    July 21 ,2020 Honorable Edward Markey United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510 Dear Senator Markey: We are writing as national and state consumer and public interest leaders and advocates who have spent our careers advancing public health, safety, consumer and environmental protection policies in Congress, the Executive Branch, the Courts and the State of Massachusetts. We want to thank you for your lifetime of instrumental work in Massachusetts and in the U.S. Congress, writing laws and forcing issuance of regulations for social justice, public health, safe and affordable transportation, environmental sustainability, a fair marketplace, investor protection, public access to electronic communications, public access to the courts, and personal privacy. A group of us analyzed your record and we have attached our list of your most notable achievements. In all these areas, you are one of the greatest leaders and legislators in Congress. In addition, we appreciate your latest work advocating for healthcare as a right, for preserving the advances under the Affordable Care Act while pressing for Medicare for All, and your focus on emergency measures for families ravaged by the coronavirus pandemic. In addition, the cutting-edge “Green New Deal” you proposed with freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has given new hope to a generation of young activists demanding that the existential threat of the climate crisis be addressed immediately and urgently. This is a realistic plan, defined by your determination to transform our job-shrinking fossil fuel economy into a job-building renewable fuel economy. These are just some recent examples of your advocacy of innovative solutions to deeply embedded problems regardless of the powerful, aggressive special interests that may oppose your remedies.
    [Show full text]