The American malpractice system is a mess, and in orthopaedic surgery, it is messier still. One problem is frivolous lawsuits. The Harvard Medical Practice Study [5] reviewed the hospitalization records of more than 30,000 patients and determined for each case whether negligence was committed and a suit was filed. The researchers found most of the events for which claims were made did not involve negligence. It is small consolation that physicians usually prevail at trial. Even when a doctor wins the case, defending a malpractice claim is a losing proposition. At best, the physician is portrayed by the plaintiff’s counsel as a bumbling incompetent. Also, malpractice insurance (which routinely exceeds USD 100,000 per year in some states) indemnifies against only financial damages; the losses of time, reputation, and serenity are for the physician alone to bear. The net drain on happiness probably exceeds what one experiences in contracting appendicitis or breaking an ankle. In response, the orthopaedic surgery community has pressed for change. The hallmark of the orthopaedic approach is limits on noneconomic damages. These so-called “caps” would mandate that while all medical expenses and lost wages caused by malpractice are compensable, no more than a given amount, say USD 250,000, can be awarded for “pain and suffering.” Caps are an appeal to logic and fairness. For one thing, the argument goes, it is impossible to place a precise dollar value on pain and suffering, and if any amount is to be arbitrary, why not keep the dollar values modest? In addition, limits on noneconomic damages mitigate the harm caused by “runaway” juries, making the system less volatile and therefore less expensive for all. But let’s face it: the real appeal of caps is that they limit the number of suits. Most cases are brought forward on a contingency basis; the lawyers get paid only if they win. If the payoff of a case is limited, its attractiveness to an attorney is, likewise, limited. Caps work. In general, malpractice premiums are much lower in those states (such as California) that have caps in place [10]. But the problem with caps is that they solve the wrong problem. While there is plenty amiss with the American medical malpractice system, the largest flaw is not having too many lawsuits. If anything, there are too few. The Harvard Medical Practice Study cited above, for example, reported only eight of the 280 patients (2.9%) who were the victims of medical negligence actually filed malpractice claims. As such, if we can agree a central purpose of a malpractice system is to compensate victims of negligence, we can also agree caps, which discourage litigation across the board, and not just the frivolous cases, undermine that purpose. And, if another central purpose of a malpractice system is to deter errors, then we might also agree any method that discourages litigation in general, benefiting bad physicians as well as good ones, similarly undermines deterrence. Orthopaedic surgeons should favor a system that minimizes physician pain yet allows victims of error unfettered access to fair compensation. Abraham and Weiler [1] have proposed such a system. They call it “enterprise liability.” Under this approach, it is the organization, not the physician, that is named as the defendant in a suit. The rationale is simple: because many medical errors are, in fact, systems failures, it stands to reason that the enterprise should bear primary responsibility for compensation and deterrence. Local enterprises, when held accountable in this way, should likewise do a better job of policing practice and eliminating bad practitioners, as opposed to the current approach to malpractice, which indiscriminately lumps (and punishes) many good surgeons along with the few bad players. There are, of course, impediments to applying enterprise liability. For one thing, even for procedure-oriented specialties like orthopaedic surgery, much health care is not delivered within the confines of a single enterprise. Also, it is not assured that enterprises themselves will avoid hunting for scapegoats. Even so, the advent of Accountable Care Organizations (as promoted by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) and the heightened political awareness among physicians regarding liability rules will, respectively, mitigate those concerns. Enterprise liability is a practical option moving forward. We orthopaedic surgeons, as advocates for our patients, should favor a system that limits error and compensates victims when errors occur. As human beings, we can’t help but hate attacks on our competence and character. Thus, we are also right to favor a system that minimizes finger pointing. A system of enterprise liability meets all of those standards. Enterprise liability, not caps on noneconomic damages, should be our favored approach.
Read full abstract
Jan 28, 2024
Atefe Rekabi + 4
Open Access