• Carol Sakala, Y Tony Yang, and Maureen P Corry.
• Childbirth Connection, New York, New York 10016, USA. sakala@childbirthconnection.org
• Womens Health Issues. 2013 Jan 1; 23 (1): e15-23.

BackgroundThe present liability system is not serving well childbearing women and newborns, maternity care clinicians, or those who pay for maternity care. Examination of evidence about the impact of this system on maternity care led us to identify seven aims for a high-functioning liability system in this clinical context. Herein, we identify policy strategies that are unlikely to meet the proposed criteria and contribute to needed improvements. A companion paper considers more promising strategies.MethodsWe considered whether 25 strategies that have been used or proposed for improvement have met or could meet the seven aims. We used a best available evidence approach and drew on more recent empirical legal studies and health services research about maternity care and liability, when available, and considered other studies when unavailable.FindingsFifteen strategies seem to have little potential to improve liability matters in maternity care. Despite support for capping non-economic damages, a series of studies has found a modest impact at best on maternity care. Maternity-specific studies also do not lend support to tort reforms collectively and several other specific tort reforms. Some tort alternative and liability insurance reform strategies have narrow aims and are not policy priorities.ConclusionsCaps on non-economic damages and other tort reforms have narrow aims and have been marginally effective at best in the context of maternity care. Several other possible reforms similarly are not promising. Continued focus on these strategies is unlikely to result in the high-performing liability system that maternity care stakeholders need.Copyright © 2013 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

26 keywords...

hide…