Peter Orszag has a nice piece on the future of medical malpractice reform. In it he gives a big shout-out to former Petrie-Flom fellow (now Cornell Law Prof) Mike Frakes and discusses papers Mike worked on while at the Center. Hopefully policymakers are listening. From Orszag’s piece:
Capping damages for medical malpractice can do little to solve this problem, but changing the standard against which doctors are evaluated would. In particular, doctors should have a safe harbor from malpractice suits if they follow evidence-based protocols published by a professional medical association. The Center for American Progress and others have proposed exactly this type of approach, and have also provided details about how it could work.
Professor Michael Frakes of Cornell Law School has done pathbreaking research on the benefits of moving away from customary-practice rules. In a new analysis, Frakes and Anupam Jena, a professor of health-care policy at Harvard Medical School, examine how malpractice laws affect mortality rates, avoidable hospitalizations, adverse events to mothers during childbirth and other measures of health-care quality. They then assess two types of reforms: changes to damages caps and changes to the local customary-practice standard.
Not my aim to be pejorative. The article written by Mr Orzag has the feel of an academian. The real world of malpractice insurance works quite differently. The issue of standards almost has no influence on the filing of a claim or the determination of the ultimate result. I understand that sounds odd…..fact is injury determines the filing and other factors determine settlement. If anyone is interested I would be happy to provide insight into the med mal industry. I spent 30 plus years handling 40,000 malpractice claims.
Peter