Dive Brief:
- A new study in the New England Journal of Medicine looking at emergency room physicians in three states found that malpractice reform laws had no effect on doctors’ use of “defensive medicine.”
- The RAND Corporation studied physician habits in Texas, South Carolina and Georgia—all states that raised malpractice standards. Physicians continued to order expensive, and often unnecessary, tests in all three states, though there was a minor drop in charges in Georgia. The study authors looked at the rate of charges, the use of advanced imaging, and hospital admission before and after legislation was passed.
- Legislation in the three states raised the standard, requiring proof of gross negligence for plaintiffs in emergency malpractice cases. The legislation was passed in Texas in 2003, and in 2005 in the other two states. The study authors concluded the issue of defensive medicine may be more complicated than a simple fear of being sued.
Dive Insight:
Fear of being sued, which leads to the use of defensive medicine, has long been an argument for reforming the nation’s malpractice laws. Studies have estimated that nearly $210 billion a year is spent on defensive medicine that is motivated by malpractice fears. But this new report may be a first step toward understanding other motivations behind the use of defensive medicine.
“When legal risk decreases, the ‘path of least resistance’ may still favor resource-intensive care,” the study authors wrote. “Our results suggest that malpractice reform may have less effect on costs than has been projected.”