IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/duk/dukeec/95-07.html

Tort Liability and Obstetricians' Care Levels

Author

Listed:
  • Sloan, Frank
  • Entman, Stephen S.
  • Reilly, Bridget A.
  • Cheryl A. Glass
  • Gerald B. Hickson
  • Harold H. Zhang

Abstract

In 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Sloan, Frank & Entman, Stephen S. & Reilly, Bridget A. & Cheryl A. Glass & Gerald B. Hickson & Harold H. Zhang, 1995. "Tort Liability and Obstetricians' Care Levels," Working Papers 95-07, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:duk:dukeec:95-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Paola Bertoli & Veronica Grembi, 2018. "Medical Malpractice: How Legal Liability Affects Medical Decisions," Contributions to Economic Analysis, in: Health Econometrics, volume 127, pages 235-261, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    3. Janet Currie & W. Bentley MacLeod, 2008. "First Do No Harm? Tort Reform and Birth Outcomes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(2), pages 795-830.
    4. 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.
    5. Philip DeCicca & Maripier Isabelle & Natalie Malak, 2024. "How do physicians respond to new medical research?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(10), pages 2206-2228, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Sofia Amaral‐Garcia & Paola Bertoli & Veronica Grembi, 2015. "Does Experience Rating Improve Obstetric Practices? Evidence from Italy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1050-1064, September.
    8. Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica, 2019. "Malpractice risk and medical treatment selection," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 22-35.
    9. 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.
    10. Brian K. Chen & Chun‐Yuh Yang, 2014. "Increased Perception of Malpractice Liability and the Practice of Defensive Medicine," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), pages 446-476, September.
    11. Chetty, V. K., 1998. "Stochastic technology, production organization and costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 187-210, April.
    12. Fenn, Paul & Gray, Alastair & Rickman, Neil, 2007. "Liability, insurance and medical practice," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1057-1070, September.
    13. Malak, Natalie & Yang, Y. Tony, 2019. "A re-examination of the effects of tort reforms on obstetrical procedures and health outcomes," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:duk:dukeec:95-07. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Department of Economics Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://econ.duke.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.