The Milbank quarterly
-
The Milbank quarterly · Jun 2008
ReviewPopulation causes and consequences of leading chronic diseases: a comparative analysis of prevailing explanations.
The mortality numbers and rates of chronic disease are rising faster in developing than in developed countries. This article compares prevailing explanations of population chronic disease trends with theoretical and empirical models of population chronic disease epidemiology and assesses some economic consequences of the growth of chronic diseases in developing countries based on the experiences of developed countries. ⋯ Macrosocial and macroeconomic forces are major determinants of population rises in chronic disease mortality, and some prevailing demographic explanations, such as population aging, are incomplete on methodological, empirical, and policy grounds. Rising chronic disease mortality rates will significantly reduce economic growth in developing countries and further widen the health and economic gap between the developed and developing world.
-
The structure of Medicare and Medicaid creates conflicting incentives regarding dually eligible beneficiaries without coordinating their care. Both Medicare and Medicaid have an interest in limiting their costs, and neither has an incentive to take responsibility for the management or quality of care. ⋯ Several policy initiatives--capitation, pay-for-performance, and the shift of the dually eligible population's Medicaid costs to the federal government--may address these conflicting incentives, but all have strengths and weaknesses. With the aging baby boom generation and projected federal and state budget shortfalls, this issue will be a continuing focus of policymakers in the coming decades.
-
This article reviews the empirical literature on the effects of damages caps and concludes that the better-designed studies show that damages caps reduce liability insurance premiums. The effects of damages caps on defensive medicine, physicians' location decisions, and the cost of health care to consumers are less clear. ⋯ Some state courts have based decisions declaring damages caps legislation unconstitutional on the lack of evidence of their effectiveness, thereby ignoring the findings of conflicting research studies or discounting their relevance. Although courts should be cautious in rejecting empirical evidence that caps are effective, legislators should consider whether they benefit consumers enough to justify limiting tort recoveries for those most seriously injured by malpractice.
-
The Milbank quarterly · Jun 2007
CommentCommentary: binding early offers versus caps for medical malpractice claims?
Like damages caps, early offer reform promises reduction in the costs of medical liability cases. In contrast to damages caps, early offer reform offers advantages to both claimant and defendant. ⋯ This commentary(1) explains how an early offer reform might work and summarizes data from a recent closed claim study of medical malpractice cases in Texas and Florida. The data show widespread opportunities for successful early offers and provide evidence that substantial per case savings would result.
-
Enacted caps on malpractice awards and proposed early offer reform address the sometimes excessive verdicts of conventional liability and its very high overhead costs. However, such reforms greatly benefit medical defendants while doing too little for claimants or patients in general. ⋯ Broad reforms, however desirable, seldom surmount high political and practical hurdles. A good, more evenhanded start would seek to make claims resolution faster, more accurate, more predictable, and less expensive, while separately promoting medical quality and safety as well as greater transparency for law, medicine, and insurance.