Faculty Bibliography

The coverage, cost, and quality problems of the U.S. health care system are evident. Sustainable health care reform must go beyond financing expanded access to care to substantially changing the organization and delivery of care. The FRESH-Thinking Project (www.fresh-thinking.org) held a series of workshops during which physicians, health policy experts, health insurance executives, business leaders, hospital administrators, economists, and others who represent diverse perspectives came together. This group agreed that the following 8 recommendations are fundamental to successful reform: 1. Replace the current fee-for-service payment system with a payment system that encourages and rewards innovation in the efficient delivery of quality care. The new payment system should invest in the development of outcome measures to guide payment. 2. Establish a securely funded, independent agency to sponsor and evaluate research on the comparative effectiveness of drugs, devices, and other medical interventions. 3. Simplify and rationalize federal and state laws and regulations to facilitate organizational innovation, support care coordination, and streamline financial and administrative functions. 4. Develop a health information technology infrastructure with national standards of interoperability to promote data exchange. 5. Create a national health database with the participation of all payers, delivery systems, and others who own health care data. Agree on methods to make de-identified information from this database on clinical interventions, patient outcomes, and costs available to researchers. 6. Identify revenue sources, including a cap on the tax exclusion of employer-based health insurance, to subsidize health care coverage with the goal of insuring all Americans. 7. Create state or regional insurance exchanges to pool risk, so that Americans without access to employer-based or other group insurance could obtain a standard benefits package through these exchanges. Employers should also be allowed to participate in these exchanges for their employees' coverage. 8. Create a health coverage board with broad stakeholder representation to determine and periodically update the affordable standard benefit package available through state or regional insurance exchanges.

Between 1993 and today, health policy experts have reached consensus that quality assurance, cost discipline, and equitable access depend on delivering health care at times, in places, and in ways much different from those to which we are accustomed. The challenge for the next generation of health reformers is to improve coverage by improving care. This can happen only if reform legislation has a theory for success, collective social meaning, and political champions.

The extent to which liability costs cause physicians to restrict their scope of practice or cease practicing is controversial in policy debates over malpractice "crises." We used insurance department administrative data to analyze specialist physician scope-of-practice changes and exits in Pennsylvania in 1993-2002. In most specialties the proportions of high-risk specialists restricting their scope of practice did not increase during the crisis; however, the supply of obstetrician-gynecologists decreased by 8 percent in the three years following premium increases in 1999. We discuss methodological issues that could explain the disparate findings regarding physician supply effects in studies using administrative data sets and survey data.

The political battle over trial lawyers and "tort reform" centers on whether or not to reduce incentives to sue for medical malpractice by capping damages in malpractice suits and limiting legal fees. But the current struggle mis-states the case for innovation in medical malpractice policy. Rather than focus exclusively on the financial consequences of legal claims, malpractice reform should move closer to the bedside, emphasizing error prevention, open communication, rapid compensation, and efficient insurance of the costs of injury. Academic health centers are well positioned to lead this effort in each of their three recognized missions: patient care, teaching, and research. Academic health centers enjoy greater institutional cohesiveness and research capacity than most other medical practice settings. Perhaps most important, their high visibility ensures that patients who suffer avoidable harm within their walls become salient to the public as individuals, not merely as dollar entries in a litigation ledger.

The merits of tax exemption for nonprofit health care providers have been hotly debated for decades. Mark Schlesinger and Brad Gray provide a useful, dispassionate meta-analysis of past research; they conclude that there are real differences in the performance of nonprofit and for-profit hospitals and nursing homes, although they vary along several key dimensions. Unfortunately, their findings offer no insight on whether these differences are large enough to justify a sizable subsidy and whether it makes more sense to use an undifferentiated subsidy tied to status (current practice), or a graduated subsidy tied to quantifiable and objective measures of performance.

The competitive benefits of pay-for-performance (P4P) financial incentives are widely assumed. These incentives can affect health care through several mechanisms, however, not all of which involve competition. This insight has three implications. First, federal antitrust enforcement should continue to scrutinize P4P arrangements. Second, government needs to play a larger role in P4P than through antitrust oversight. Third, widespread enthusiasm for a particular health policy reform does not relieve policy makers of the obligation to understand its theoretical basis.

OBJECTIVE:To investigate specialist physicians' practice decisions in response to liability concerns and their perceptions of the impact of the malpractice environment on patient access to care. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:A perennial concern during "malpractice crises" is that liability costs will drive physicians in high-risk specialties out of practice, creating specialist shortages and access-to-care problems. METHODS:Mail survey of 824 Pennsylvania physicians in general surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, obstetrics/gynecology, emergency medicine, and radiology eliciting information on practice decisions made in response to rising liability costs. RESULTS:Strong majorities of specialists reported increases over the last 3 years in patients' driving distances (58%) and waiting times (83%) for specialist care or surgery, waiting times for emergency department care (82%), and the number of patients forced to switch physicians (89%). Professional liability costs and managed care were both considered important contributing factors. Small proportions of specialists reported that they would definitely retire (7%) or relocate their practice out of state (4%) within the next 2 years; another third (32% and 29%, respectively) said they would likely do so. Forty-two percent of specialists have reduced or eliminated high-risk aspects of their practice, and 50% are likely to do so over the next 2 years. CONCLUSIONS:Our data suggest that claims of a "physician exodus" from Pennsylvania due to rising liability costs are overstated, but the malpractice situation is having demonstrable effects on the supply of specialist physicians in affected areas and their scope of practice, which likely impinges upon patients' access to care.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:How often physicians alter their clinical behavior because of the threat of malpractice liability, termed defensive medicine, and the consequences of those changes, are central questions in the ongoing medical malpractice reform debate. OBJECTIVE:To study the prevalence and characteristics of defensive medicine among physicians practicing in high-liability specialties during a period of substantial instability in the malpractice environment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Mail survey of physicians in 6 specialties at high risk of litigation (emergency medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, obstetrics/gynecology, and radiology) in Pennsylvania in May 2003. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Number of physicians in each specialty reporting defensive medicine or changes in scope of practice and characteristics of defensive medicine (assurance and avoidance behavior). RESULTS:A total of 824 physicians (65%) completed the survey. Nearly all (93%) reported practicing defensive medicine. "Assurance behavior" such as ordering tests, performing diagnostic procedures, and referring patients for consultation, was very common (92%). Among practitioners of defensive medicine who detailed their most recent defensive act, 43% reported using imaging technology in clinically unnecessary circumstances. Avoidance of procedures and patients that were perceived to elevate the probability of litigation was also widespread. Forty-two percent of respondents reported that they had taken steps to restrict their practice in the previous 3 years, including eliminating procedures prone to complications, such as trauma surgery, and avoiding patients who had complex medical problems or were perceived as litigious. Defensive practice correlated strongly with respondents' lack of confidence in their liability insurance and perceived burden of insurance premiums. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Defensive medicine is highly prevalent among physicians in Pennsylvania who pay the most for liability insurance, with potentially serious implications for cost, access, and both technical and interpersonal quality of care.