Tort liability and obstetricians' care levels
AbstractIn this study, we assess practice changes made in response to the threat of tort liability in the field of obstetrics, which has one of the highest levels of premiums, claim frequency, and mean dollar value of paid claims. There is much "conventional wisdom" about effects of tort liability risk on obstetrical practice based on obstetricians' perceptions of changes that have occurred. Our data comes from the Survey of Obstetrical Care in 1992, a survey of 963 women who had given birth in 1987 in 31 counties in Florida conducted for purposes of this study and related studies of medical malpractice and birth outcomes. Our results suggest that some antenatal testing is responsive to variation in the threat of being used. But for most measures included in our study, half of the antenatal testing variables, the decision to perform a cesarean section, and various dimensions of maternal satisfaction with care, our empirical analysis failed to reveal that obstetricians practice more "defensively" in areas with relatively high suit rates.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal International Review of Law and Economics.
Volume (Year): 17 (1997)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle
Other versions of this item:
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Dubay, Lisa & Kaestner, Robert & Waidmann, Timothy, 1999. "The impact of malpractice fears on cesarean section rates," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 491-522, August.
- Paul Fenn & Alastair Gray & Neil Rickman, 2004. "Liability, insurance and defensive medicine: new evidence," School of Economics Discussion Papers 0304, School of Economics, University of Surrey.
- Janet Currie & W. Bentley MacLeod, 2006.
"First Do No Harm?: Tort Reform and Birth Outcomes,"
NBER Working Papers
12478, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Sloan, Frank A. & Shadle, John H., 2009. "Is there empirical evidence for "Defensive Medicine"? A reassessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 481-491, March.
- Dubay, Lisa & Kaestner, Robert & Waidmann, Timothy, 2001. "Medical malpractice liability and its effect on prenatal care utilization and infant health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 591-611, July.
- Chetty, V. K., 1998. "Stochastic technology, production organization and costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 187-210, April.
- Fenn, Paul & Gray, Alastair & Rickman, Neil, 2007. "Liability, insurance and medical practice," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1057-1070, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.