The medical malpractice insurance "crises" and federal medical malpractice tort reform: Collection and analysis of bills passed by the United States House of Representatives from 1995--2005

There have been three medical malpractice insurance "crises" in the United States over a time spanning roughly the past three decades (Poisson, 2004, p. 759-760). Each crisis is characterized by a number of common features, including rapidly increasing medical malpractice insurance premiums, cancellation of existing insurance policies, and a decreased willingness of insurers to offer or renew medical malpractice insurance policies (Poisson, 2004, p. 759-760). Given the recurrent "crises," many sources argue that medical malpractice insurance coverage has become too expensive a commodity—one that many physicians simply cannot afford (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2002, p. 1-2; Physician Insurers Association of America [PIAA], 2003, p. 1; Jackiw, 2004, p. 506; Glassman, 2004, p. 417; Padget, 2003, p. 216). ^ The prohibitively high cost of medical liability insurance is said to limit the geographical areas and medical specializations in which physicians are willing to practice. As a result, the high costs of medical liability insurance are ultimately said to affect whether or not people have access to health care services. ^ In an effort to control the medical liability insurance crises—and to preserve or restore peoples' access to health care—every state in the United States has passed "at least some laws designed to reduce medical malpractice premium rates" (GAO, 2003, p.5-6). More recently, however, the United States has witnessed a push to implement federal reform of the medical malpractice tort system. Accordingly, this project focuses on federal medical malpractice tort reform. This project was designed to investigate the following specific question: Do the federal medical malpractice tort reform bills which passed in the House of Representatives between 1995 and 2005 differ in respect to their principle features? To answer this question, the text of the bills, law review articles, and reports from government and private agencies were analyzed. Further, a matrix was compiled to concisely summarize the principle features of the proposed federal medical malpractice tort reform bills. Insight gleaned from this investigation and matrix compilation informs discussion about the potential ramifications of enacting federal medical malpractice tort reform legislation. ^

An analysis of Texas's school based HPV vaccine mandate: A public health risk communication failure: HPVETO!

Genital human papillomavirus (HPV) is of public health concern because persistent infection with certain HPV types can cause cervical cancer. In response to a nationwide push for cervical cancer legislation, Texas Governor Rick Perry bypassed the traditional legislative process and issued an executive order mandating compulsory HPV vaccinations for all female public school students prior to their entrance in the sixth grade. By bypassing the legislative process Governor Perry did not effectively mitigate the risk perception issues that arose around the need for and usefulness of the vaccine mandate. This policy paper uses a social policy paradigm to identify perception as the key intervening factor on how the public responds to risk information. To demonstrate how the HPV mandate failed, it analyzes four factors, economics, politics, knowledge and culture, that shape perception and influence the public's response. By understanding the factors that influence the public's perception, public health practitioners and policy makers can more effectively create preventive health policy at the state level. ^

Factors contributing to the attrition of women in the African-American Nutrition for Life study

Background. There is currently a push to increase the number of minorities in cancer clinical trials in an effort to reduce cancer health disparities. Overcoming barriers to clinical trial research for minorities is necessary if we are to achieve the goals of Healthy People 2010. To understand the unexpectedly high rate of attrition in the A NULIFE study, the research team examined the perceived barriers to participation among minority women. The purpose of this study was to determine if either personal or study-related factors influenced healthy pre-menopausal women aged 25-45 years to terminate their participation in the A NULIFE Study. We hypothesized that personal factors were the driving forces for attrition rates in the prevention trial.^ Methods. The target population consisted of eligible women who consented to the A NULIFE study but withdrew prior to being randomized (N= 46), as well as eligible women who completed the informed consent process for the A NULIFE study and withdrew after randomization (N= 42). Examination of attrition rates in this study occurred at a time point when 10 out of 12 participant groups had completed the A NULIFE study. Data involving the 2 groups that were actively engaged in study activities were not used in this analysis. A survey instrument was designed to query the personal and study-related factors that were believed to have contributed to the decision to terminate participation in the A NULIFE study.^ Results. Overall, the highest ranked personal reason that influenced withdrawal from the study was being “too busy” with other obligations. The second highest ranked factor for withdrawal was work obligations. Whereas, more than half of all participants agreed that they were well-informed about the study and considered the study personnel to be approachable, 54% of participants would have been inclined to remain in the study if it were located at a local community center.^ Conclusions. Time commitment was likely a major factor for withdrawal from the A NULIFE study. Future investigators should implement trials within participant communities where possible. Also, focus group settings may provide detailed insight into factors that contribute to the attrition of minorities in cancer clinical trials.^