以许可转移责任:医疗事故与执业范围法的实证分析

Q3 Social Sciences
Benjamin J. McMichael
{"title":"以许可转移责任:医疗事故与执业范围法的实证分析","authors":"Benjamin J. McMichael","doi":"10.1515/jtl-2019-0028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Medical malpractice liability plays an important role in the healthcare system, as evidenced by the many studies finding that changes in malpractice liability risk induce changes in the delivery and consumption of care. Importantly, the effect of malpractice liability depends on who is held liable, and recent developments in the healthcare system have clouded which providers face the risk of liability in certain situations. In particular, as the United States continues to face a physician shortage, nurse practitioners (NPs) have assumed greater roles within the healthcare system. Their ability to provide care, however, depends on state scope-of-practice (SOP) laws which often mandate that physicians supervise NPs’ practices. These mandatory supervision laws can facilitate the ability of injured patients to use various familiar doctrines, e. g. respondeat superior and negligent supervision, to hold supervising physicians liable based on the acts of NPs. As healthcare becomes increasingly team-based and as NPs deliver more care traditionally provided by physicians, understanding the interaction between malpractice liability and SOP laws will become critical. This Article reports novel empirical evidence on the interplay between malpractice liability and SOP laws. Examining a unique dataset of the malpractice premiums charged to physicians in various specialties, I analyze the extent to which SOP laws requiring that physicians supervise the practices of NPs impact the malpractice liability risk faced by physicians. In general, eliminating physician supervision requirements reduce the malpractice risk faced by physicians (as measured by the premiums paid to insure against this risk) by 7.5 %. In addition to elucidating a previously unappreciated interaction between tort law and state SOP laws, this evidence suggests that the imposition of physician supervision requirements may blunt the role of tort law in deterring the provision of unsafe or low-quality care. If SOP laws facilitate the shifting of liability risk from NPs to physicians through various tort doctrines, then neither NPs nor physicians will be appropriately deterred. Indeed, reaching optimal deterrence for one group would necessarily imply suboptimality for the other. This Article reviews several options to address this problem and recommends removing physician supervision requirements from state SOP laws.","PeriodicalId":39054,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Tort Law","volume":"12 1","pages":"213 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jtl-2019-0028","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shifting Liability with Licensing: An Empirical Analysis of Medical Malpractice and Scope-of-Practice Laws\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin J. McMichael\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jtl-2019-0028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Medical malpractice liability plays an important role in the healthcare system, as evidenced by the many studies finding that changes in malpractice liability risk induce changes in the delivery and consumption of care. Importantly, the effect of malpractice liability depends on who is held liable, and recent developments in the healthcare system have clouded which providers face the risk of liability in certain situations. In particular, as the United States continues to face a physician shortage, nurse practitioners (NPs) have assumed greater roles within the healthcare system. Their ability to provide care, however, depends on state scope-of-practice (SOP) laws which often mandate that physicians supervise NPs’ practices. These mandatory supervision laws can facilitate the ability of injured patients to use various familiar doctrines, e. g. respondeat superior and negligent supervision, to hold supervising physicians liable based on the acts of NPs. As healthcare becomes increasingly team-based and as NPs deliver more care traditionally provided by physicians, understanding the interaction between malpractice liability and SOP laws will become critical. This Article reports novel empirical evidence on the interplay between malpractice liability and SOP laws. Examining a unique dataset of the malpractice premiums charged to physicians in various specialties, I analyze the extent to which SOP laws requiring that physicians supervise the practices of NPs impact the malpractice liability risk faced by physicians. In general, eliminating physician supervision requirements reduce the malpractice risk faced by physicians (as measured by the premiums paid to insure against this risk) by 7.5 %. In addition to elucidating a previously unappreciated interaction between tort law and state SOP laws, this evidence suggests that the imposition of physician supervision requirements may blunt the role of tort law in deterring the provision of unsafe or low-quality care. If SOP laws facilitate the shifting of liability risk from NPs to physicians through various tort doctrines, then neither NPs nor physicians will be appropriately deterred. Indeed, reaching optimal deterrence for one group would necessarily imply suboptimality for the other. This Article reviews several options to address this problem and recommends removing physician supervision requirements from state SOP laws.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39054,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Tort Law\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"213 - 253\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jtl-2019-0028\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Tort Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2019-0028\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Tort Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2019-0028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要医疗事故责任在医疗保健系统中扮演着重要的角色,许多研究发现医疗事故责任风险的变化会导致医疗服务的提供和消费的变化。重要的是,医疗事故责任的影响取决于谁承担责任,医疗保健系统的最新发展使哪些提供者在某些情况下面临责任风险变得模糊不清。特别是,由于美国继续面临医生短缺,执业护士(NPs)在医疗保健系统中承担了更大的作用。然而,他们提供护理的能力取决于国家的执业范围(SOP)法律,该法律通常要求医生监督NPs的执业。这些强制性监管法律可以促进受伤患者使用各种熟悉的理论,例如:对上级监管和疏忽监管的责任追究监督医师对非执业医师行为的责任。随着医疗保健越来越以团队为基础,以及np提供更多传统上由医生提供的护理,了解医疗事故责任和SOP法律之间的相互作用将变得至关重要。本文报告了医疗事故责任与SOP法律之间相互作用的新经验证据。通过对不同专业的医生收取的医疗事故保费的独特数据集,我分析了SOP法律要求医生监督NPs的做法对医生面临的医疗事故责任风险的影响程度。总的来说,取消医生监督要求可以减少医生所面临的医疗事故风险(以针对这种风险所支付的保费来衡量)7.5%。除了阐明之前未被重视的侵权法和州SOP法之间的相互作用外,这一证据表明,强制实施医生监督要求可能会削弱侵权法在阻止提供不安全或低质量护理方面的作用。如果SOP法律通过各种侵权理论促使责任风险从np转移到医生身上,那么np和医生都不会受到适当的威慑。事实上,对一个群体达到最优威慑,必然意味着对另一个群体达到次优。本文回顾了解决这一问题的几种选择,并建议从州SOP法律中删除医生监督要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Shifting Liability with Licensing: An Empirical Analysis of Medical Malpractice and Scope-of-Practice Laws
Abstract Medical malpractice liability plays an important role in the healthcare system, as evidenced by the many studies finding that changes in malpractice liability risk induce changes in the delivery and consumption of care. Importantly, the effect of malpractice liability depends on who is held liable, and recent developments in the healthcare system have clouded which providers face the risk of liability in certain situations. In particular, as the United States continues to face a physician shortage, nurse practitioners (NPs) have assumed greater roles within the healthcare system. Their ability to provide care, however, depends on state scope-of-practice (SOP) laws which often mandate that physicians supervise NPs’ practices. These mandatory supervision laws can facilitate the ability of injured patients to use various familiar doctrines, e. g. respondeat superior and negligent supervision, to hold supervising physicians liable based on the acts of NPs. As healthcare becomes increasingly team-based and as NPs deliver more care traditionally provided by physicians, understanding the interaction between malpractice liability and SOP laws will become critical. This Article reports novel empirical evidence on the interplay between malpractice liability and SOP laws. Examining a unique dataset of the malpractice premiums charged to physicians in various specialties, I analyze the extent to which SOP laws requiring that physicians supervise the practices of NPs impact the malpractice liability risk faced by physicians. In general, eliminating physician supervision requirements reduce the malpractice risk faced by physicians (as measured by the premiums paid to insure against this risk) by 7.5 %. In addition to elucidating a previously unappreciated interaction between tort law and state SOP laws, this evidence suggests that the imposition of physician supervision requirements may blunt the role of tort law in deterring the provision of unsafe or low-quality care. If SOP laws facilitate the shifting of liability risk from NPs to physicians through various tort doctrines, then neither NPs nor physicians will be appropriately deterred. Indeed, reaching optimal deterrence for one group would necessarily imply suboptimality for the other. This Article reviews several options to address this problem and recommends removing physician supervision requirements from state SOP laws.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Tort Law
Journal of Tort Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The Journal of Tort Law aims to be the premier publisher of original articles about tort law. JTL is committed to methodological pluralism. The only peer-reviewed academic journal in the U.S. devoted to tort law, the Journal of Tort Law publishes cutting-edge scholarship in tort theory and jurisprudence from a range of interdisciplinary perspectives: comparative, doctrinal, economic, empirical, historical, philosophical, and policy-oriented. Founded by Jules Coleman (Yale) and some of the world''s most prominent tort scholars from the Harvard, Fordham, NYU, Yale, and University of Haifa law faculties, the journal is the premier source for original articles about tort law and jurisprudence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信