• C J Stimson, Roger Dmochowski, and David F Penson.
• Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37203-1738, USA.
• J. Urol. 2010 Nov 1;184(5):1840-6.

PurposeWe reviewed the state of medical malpractice tort reform in the context of a new political climate and the current debate over comprehensive health care reform. Specifically we asked whether medical malpractice tort reform is necessary, and evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of contemporary reform proposals.Materials And MethodsThe medical, legal and public policy literature related to medical malpractice tort reform was reviewed and synthesized. We include a primer for understanding the current structure of medical malpractice law, identify the goals of the current system and analyze whether these goals are presently being met. Finally, we describe and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the current reform proposals including caps on damages, safe harbors and health care courts.ResultsMedical malpractice tort law is designed to improve health care quality and appropriately compensate patients for medical malpractice injuries, but is failing on both fronts. Of the 3 proposed remedies, caps on damages do little to advance the quality and compensatory goals, while safe harbors and health care courts represent important advancements in tort reform.ConclusionsTort reform should be included in the current health policy debate because the current medical malpractice system is not adequately achieving the basic goals of tort law. While safe harbors and health care courts both represent reasonable remedies, health care courts may be preferred because they do not rely on jury determination in the absence of strong medical evidence.Copyright © 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

7 keywords...

hide…