The U.S. Medical Malpractice Liability System has two main objectives. Its primary objective is to pay patients for injuries caused by the negligence of healthcare providers. In practice, the two main objectives are to discourage providers from negligently practicing and to revoke providers. However, it is costly and slow to administer. The system fails to compensate, but it is also slow and expensive to administer. It fails to compensate patients who have received poor medical care. Physician opinion surveys show that the system encourages doctors to avoid it. 

Opinion surveys of physicians indicate that the system encourages doctors to take risky and inefficient treatments, based on fear or legal liability. To practice "defensive medicine", Harris Interactive, 2002. "Defense medicine: The failures in the liability system" (Harris Interactive 2002). A combination of the failures of the US liability system and the high costs of American health care has created a critical debate about tort policy. What is the success rate of malpractice law in achieving its goals? Tort policy is better than debate. What is the success rate of malpractice law in achieving its goals? What is the problem with defensive medicine? Can reforms to malpractice laws reduce its impact on healthcare spending? How can we reduce its impact on healthcare spending This paper starts with an overview of the operation and consequences of malpractice. The empirical evidence regarding its effects is then summarized.

 The system. The empirical evidence regarding its effects is summarized below. Although administrative and indemnity expenses are less than 1% of health expenditure, the cost of defensive medicine is likely to be much higher. According to a recent estimate, defensive medicine costs are between 2% and 3% of total health spending. This amounts to over $50 billion annually (Mello Chandra Gawande and Studdert 2010). It is estimated that the annual cost of defensive medicine is $50 billion (Mello Chandra, Gawande, and Studdert 2010, 2010).

 Patients and physicians don't share the majority of the costs. This leads doctors to recommend the treatment of a particular case. Doctors can choose between treatments that balance the cost imposed by the malpractice systems and treatments that only eat a fraction of the resources they use. Even a fraction of the treatment's resources can be used. Even if medical malpractice tort law correctly allocated the medical injury burden, but if it did not, physicians and their patients would be more sensitive to the true cost of care. They would prefer to take socially excessive precautions to avoid iatrogenic injuries (an injury that is related to medical treatment). o medical treatment). 

The U.S. The U.S. Malpractice System: Theory and Basic Operation Malpractice System: Theory and Basic Operation 

Over the past 40 years, the U.S. malpractice system has played a greater role in U.S. healthcare. The award paid for malpractice cases per doctor is 0 years. From the 1960s to 1980s, both the number of malpractice claims per doctor and the amount paid per claim grew rapidly (Danzon 2000). The number of er claims increased quickly from the 1960s to 1980s (Danzon 2000). In 1990, claims frequency stabilized at approximately 15 per 100 doctors per year. 990, claim frequencies stabilized at about 15 per 100 physicians each year. However, award per claim continued rising, with a doubling of real terms between 1990. During this period, ut award per case continued to increase, increasing by doubling between 1990-2001 (Thorpe 2004). However, evidence was beginning to show that 001 had been established by the end of 2000 (Thorpe 2004). However, evidence showed that claims frequency began to decrease by the end of 2000 (Thorpe, 2004). 

Page Break 

Malpractice insurance covers doctors' defense costs. Most doctors have malpractice insurance. There is a lot of literature about malpractice insurance that explains the differences in the price of malpractice insurance. Malpractice insurance prices vary greatly by specialty and geographical area. This is largely due to variations in award sizes and frequency. In 2009, premiums were based on the expected frequency of claims and size of awards. In 2009, the premiums for specialists in internal and obstetrics in Suffolk County, New York were $33,000 and $178,000 respectively. Premiums in Colorado, however, were about 33,000 and $178,000 respectively (Medical Liability Monitor 2009 span> ). 

Malpractice claims are generally decided in state courts by state law. In general, state courts adjudicate malpractice claims according to state laws. These typically require three elements to a successful case: 1) The patient suffered an adverse condition; 2) The provider caused it or caused it; 3) The provider was negligent. This means that the provider provided less care than what is usual for good members of the profession, given the circumstances and the circumstances of both the doctor and the patient (Keaton and al. This three-part test is used to determine the validity of the patient's claim (Keaton and al., 1984). This three-part test for the validity of a malpractice case is collectively known as "the "negligence" rule (Budetti et al., 1984). The "negligence" rule is a general rule that determines the validity of a claim. (Budetti et al., 2005). 

This rule should provide compensation for iatrogenically injures. In theory, it should also provide compensation for iatrogenically injured patients. Lead doctors and patients to take the necessary precautions against any accidental harm. However, in practice, the rule does not perform well on both dimensions. However, the rule is not good in both dimensions. The landmark Harvard Medical Practice Study (1990) found that only one in fifteen patients who sustain an injury due to medical negligence receives compensation. According to the landmark Harvard Medical Practice Study (90), only one in fifteen patients who sustain an injury due to medical negligence receives compensation. 

Fifteen percent of cases that receive compensation do not have any evidence of negligence. Only six percent of cases that are awarded compensation do not show negligence. Studdert's, Thomas's, Burstin's, Zvar, and Orav's recent research reflects these fi 2000. Medical malpractice claimants receive awards. Long delays are common for medical malpractice claimants. On average, it takes about four years to resolve an award. Furthermore, every dollar spent on malpractice claims is a dollar lost (Cohen & Hughes, 2007). For every dollar spent on compensation 54 cents were used for litigation expenses and transaction costs. 54 cents also went to compensation (Studdert and Hughes, 2006). Studdert et al., 2006).