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. ^

Design of a systematic approach to workplace exposure medical surveillance protocols

Current toxic tort cases have increased national awareness of health concerns and present an important avenue in which public health scientists can perform a vital function: in litigation, and in public health initiatives and promotions which may result. This review presents a systematic approach, using the paradigm of interactive public health disciplines, for the design of a matrix framework for medical surveillance of workers exposed to toxic substances. The matrix framework design addresses the required scientific bases to support the legal remedy of medical monitoring for workers injured as a result of their exposure to toxic agents. A background of recent legal developments which have a direct impact on the use of scientific expertise in litigation is examined in the context of toxic exposure litigation and the attainment of public health goals. The matrix model is applied to five different workplace exposures: dental mercury, firefighting, vinyl chloride manufacture, radon in mining and silica. An exposure matrix designed by the Department of Energy for government nuclear workers is included as a reference comparison to the design matrix. ^