SSRN Home Search and Download Papers Browse Abstract and Paper Submission Subscribe to Networks View Briefcase Top Papers Top Authors Top Institutions

 

Abstract

 
 

References (56)

Beta

 
 

Citations (1)

Beta

 


 


Download | Share | Email | Add to Briefcase | Buy Hard Copy

Reconsidering the Harvard Medical Practice Study Conclusions about the Validity of Medical Malpractice Claims

Tom Baker
University of Pennsylvania Law School


June 6, 2005


Abstract:     
Over fifteen years after first reporting to the State of New York, the Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS) continues to have a significant impact in medical malpractice policy debates. In those debates the HMPS has come to stand for four main propositions. First, "medical injury . . . accounts for more deaths than all other kinds of accidents combined" and "more than a quarter of those were caused by substandard care." Second, the vast majority of people who are injured as a result of substandard care do not file a claim. Third, "a substantial majority of malpractice claims filed are not based on provider carelessness or even iatrogenic injury." Fourth, "whether negligence or a medical injury had occurred . . . bore little relation to the outcome of the claims." In light of this continuing reliance on the HMPS and the follow-up closed claim study, this article reviews the evidence regarding their findings about the validity of medical malpractice claims. The results of this review are as follows: First, the finding that most eligible people do not bring medical malpractice claims is well supported and confirmed by other studies using both similar and very different research methods. Second, the finding that most medical malpractice claims are not based on either iatrogenic injury or provider negligence stands on a small and precarious empirical base. Indeed, the HMPS data are as likely to support a very different finding, namely that most malpractice claims are reasonably related to medical management injuries and provider negligence. Finally, the finding from the follow-up closed claim study rests on an even weaker base and is contradicted by a large body of research on closed medical malpractice claims. In fact, the research reviewed in part IIIB of this article suggests that the legal system filters out most of the weaker claims.

Keywords: malpractice, health care, liability

JEL Classifications: I10, K13

Working Paper Series

Date posted: May 20, 2005 ; Last revised: February 14, 2006

Suggested Citation

Baker, Tom, Reconsidering the Harvard Medical Practice Study Conclusions about the Validity of Medical Malpractice Claims (June 6, 2005). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=724781 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.724781


Export to: Export Citation What's this?

Contact Information

Tom Baker (Contact Author)
University of Pennsylvania Law School ( email )
3400 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6204
United States
215-746-2185 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/thbaker/
Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 2,072
Downloads: 378
Download Rank: 20,644
References: 56
Citations: 1

© 2009 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use  Privacy Policy
This page was served by apollo4 in 0.156 seconds.