The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

No less prestigious a group than the Harvard Medical Practice Study Group, in an article entitled “Doctors and Lawyers: Medical Injury, Malpractice Litigation and Patient Compensation in New York”, concluded that it is “unclear the extent to which defensive medicine results from the malpractice environment or from other factors such as advances in the science and technology of medicine [e.g., 30 years ago there was no such thing as an MRI], technology of medicine, changes in societal expectations as to what constitutes an appropriate level of medical care, or changes in [Peer Review Organization], state and hospital requirements”.

Additionally the non-partisan Government Accounting Office GAO, reported in a statement to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Health that “[c]oncerns about the threat of malpractice claims and associated financial losses have been a motivating force in the development of quality assurance activities — not so called unnecessary defensive medicine. Testifying before the same committed, the Congressional Budget Office noted that “[I]f the system of medical malpractice liability were modified…much of the care that is commonly dubbed “defensive medicine” would probably continue to be provided for reasons other than concerns about malpractice.

I guess these guys just didn’t know they too were throwing soft balls!

Comments are closed.

Of Interest