MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - A NONADVERSARIAL SUGGESTION

BACKGROUND: The current legal system for prosecuting medical malpractice claims has bred widespread discontent. It has increased costs, jeopardized the delivery of necessary medical services, and corroded the physician-patient relationship with mistrust and poor morale. METHODS: Analysis of fairness of compensation awards and deterrence of substandard medical services under the current system. RESULTS: Compensation awards are inconsistent and unfairly contingent on irrational, adventitious factors. The current system does not seem to have had a significant effect on deterrning poor medical practice or on improving medical practice in general. CONCLUSIONS: An alternative to the current litigation-oriented medical malpractice system should be established and centered around a four-member Medical Malpractice Tribunal composed of a general physician, an expert physician in the speciality area of the claim, an attorney, and a lay person. This tribunal would be empowered to investigate malpractice claims by gathering evidence and taking testimony from parties, experts, and witnesses. The tribunal could employ a table of treatment-related injuries in making findings as to physician liability and victim compensation. Such a system, through predictability, would likely increase malpractice prevention while decreasing legal costs and also costs associated with defensive medicine. Deterrence could be served by giving the tribunal power to recommend sanctions against substandard providers to appropriate licensing and disciplinary bodies and by requiring those found guilty of malpractice to contribute subsidies to a compensation fund.