Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=726503
 
 

References (39)



 


 



Private Contractual Alternatives to Malpractice Liability


Jennifer Arlen


New York University School of Law


NYU, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 05-07
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND THE U.S. HEALTH CARE SYSTEM: NEW CENTURY, DIFFERENT ISSUES, William M. Sage & Rogan Kersh, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2006

Abstract:     
Leading law and economics scholars claim that the best way to reform medical malpractice liability is to permit patients and medical providers to determine the scope of malpractice liability by contract. Contractual liability is superior to any form of tort liability for malpractice, it is argued, because contractual liability benefits those patients not well served by existing tort law, but does not hurt patients who benefit from malpractice liability because these patients can, and will, impose liability by contract.

This chapter shows that contractual liability is not necessarily better than tort liability because it can make patients worse off. Proponents of contractual liability asserts that contractual liability cannot make patients worse off because they assume that liability obtained by contract affords patients the same benefits as liability imposed by tort. This is not the case. Medical providers often will be unable to design contracts that enable patients to obtain the same benefits from contracted-for liability as they can from tort liability because tort liability benefits patients through the incentives to invest in care (to benefit all patients) provided by the threat of liability for injuries to other patients, now and in the future. Providers may not be able to replicate this collective, multiperiod liability by contract. Patients unable to replicate the benefits of tort liability by contract may rationally reject contractual liability, even when they would have benefited from (and voted for) tort liability for malpractice. If so, contractual liability makes these patients worse off. Patients also are worse off if they are not sufficiently informed to contract in their own best interests. Accordingly, while malpractice liability reform is essential, policymakers cannot assume that it would be better accomplished by private contracting because contractual liability and tort liability are quite different products.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 31

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: May 19, 2005 ; Last revised: February 12, 2010

Suggested Citation

Arlen, Jennifer, Private Contractual Alternatives to Malpractice Liability. NYU, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 05-07; MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND THE U.S. HEALTH CARE SYSTEM: NEW CENTURY, DIFFERENT ISSUES, William M. Sage & Rogan Kersh, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2006. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=726503

Contact Information

Jennifer Arlen (Contact Author)
New York University School of Law ( email )
40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012-1099
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 2,507
Downloads: 226
Download Rank: 79,978
References:  39

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.250 seconds