Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1087358
 
 

Citations



 


 



Beyond Negligence: Avoidability and Medical Injury Compensation


Allen Kachalia


Harvard University - Brigham and Women's Hospital

David M. Studdert


University of Melbourne - Faculty of Law & Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences

Troyen A. Brennan


Aetna, Inc.

Michelle M. Mello


Harvard University - Department of Health Policy & Management; Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics


Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 387-402, 2008

Abstract:     
Disenchantment with the tort system and negligence standard in the United States is fueling interest in alternate compensation systems for medical injury. One possibility is experimentation with administrative health courts, through which specialized adjudicators would utilize neutral experts to render compensability determinations. Compensation would be based not on negligence, but rather on a broader avoidable medical injury (avoidability) standard. Although considerable interest in health courts exists, stakeholders frequently express uncertainty about the meaning and operation of an avoidability standard.

Three nations - Sweden, Denmark, and New Zealand - have long operated administrative schemes. We conducted interviews with administrators and stakeholders in these systems. Our goal was to garner lessons on how to operate a health court, and specifically, how to develop and apply alternate compensation criteria such as avoidability. This article reports our findings on the origins and operations of the systems, the evolution of their compensation criteria, and how these criteria are actually applied.

We found that all three systems had their primary genesis in ensuring compensation for the injured, as opposed to sanctioning providers. All have abandoned the negligence standard. The Nordic systems use an avoidability standard, principally defined as injury that would not occur in the hands of the best practitioner. Their experience demonstrates that this definition is feasible to apply. New Zealand's recent move to a no-fault system sheds light on the benefits and drawbacks of a variety of compensation standards.

Key lessons for successfully applying an alternate standard, such as avoidability, include a strict adherence to national precedent, the use of neutral and experienced experts, and a block on routine transfer of information from compensation investigations to disciplinary authorities. Importantly, all three nations are harnessing their systems' power to improve patient safety, and the avoidability standard appears to be well suited for this task.

Keywords: Malpractice, Avoidability, Patient injuries, Medical error compensation, Patient safety, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand

JEL Classification: I10, K13, K32

Accepted Paper Series


Not Available For Download

Date posted: January 26, 2008  

Suggested Citation

Kachalia, Allen and Studdert, David M. and Brennan, Troyen A. and Mello, Michelle M., Beyond Negligence: Avoidability and Medical Injury Compensation. Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 387-402, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1087358

Contact Information

Allen Kachalia (Contact Author)
Harvard University - Brigham and Women's Hospital ( email )
75 Francis St.
Boston, MA 02115
United States
David M. Studdert
University of Melbourne - Faculty of Law & Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences ( email )
Melbourne, Victoria 3010
Australia
Troyen A. Brennan
Aetna, Inc. ( email )
Michelle M. Mello
Harvard University - Department of Health Policy & Management ( email )
677 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02115
United States
617-432-0217 (Phone)
617-432-4494 (Fax)
Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics ( email )
124 Mount Auburn Street
Suite 520N
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 687

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.297 seconds