Medical malpractice immunity from clinical practice guidelines

Ezra Klein calls Peter Orszag’s proposal in a recent New York Times column a “new idea on medical malpractice reform.”

Except it’s really not.

The idea of immunizing doctors who follow strict clinical practice guidelines was floated by the AMA back in May of 2009. I supported the idea back then, saying the AMA is

acknowledging and embracing the data that is very influential in the White House, as well as in progressive health policy circles, and parlaying that into reasonable malpractice reform.

I think it’s a smart play.

Orszag brings the idea back up almost a year and a half later, using malpractice as a way to convince doctors curb costs. As I mentioned earlier, if progressive health policy experts want doctors to change behavior, they need to entice physicians with carrots.

And there’s no bigger carrot than malpractice reform. Here he is, waving a fat orange one in front of doctors:

The traditional way to reform medical malpractice law has been to impose caps on liability — for example, by limiting punitive damages to something like $500,000. A far better strategy would be to provide safe harbor for doctors who follow evidence-based guidelines. Anyone who could demonstrate that he has followed the recommended course for treating a specific illness or condition could not be held liable.

And, no doubt, this would be enticing. But it’s unlikely going to work.

The main problem is that doctors themselves won’t agree on a consensus set of practice guidelines the practice under. Witness the debacle that came after the USPSTF changed their mammogram screening guidelines.

Or the pushback from urologists whenever the utility of PSA screening tests is called into question.

And finally, patients themselves need to accept the ramifications of practicing under strict, evidence-based guidelines. Most of which will mean less testing, which has been shown in studies to be an idea that some patients may find difficult to accept.

But I find it refreshing to see progressive health policy experts, who often are loathe to admit anything wrong with the malpractice system, offering cogent solutions — which is a step in the right direction.

 is an internal medicine physician and on the Board of Contributors at USA Today.  He is founder and editor of KevinMD.com, also on FacebookTwitterGoogle+, and LinkedIn.

email

  • http://www.medicaljustice.com Shane Stadler

    Jeff Segal, CEO of Medical Justice, has presented this case for years. Great to see others “catching up”

  • SarahW

    This is a bad idea, very bad indeed. The standard of care has always applied. (I also seem to remember you making the argument that adherence to CG should immunize, but taking going outside the bounds of these “when necessary” should also not be punished, should something go wrong.)
    Th SOC cannot be rigid, because so much depends on what information is available to the physician, and whether he has taken enough care to get it.

    There is no way to create immunity that benefits patient care, and really very little benefit to the practitioner either.
    It merely removes what there is left of a profession and degrades it into a technical career.

  • family doc

    Sarah is right. This will take a bad situation and make it worse.

  • Solomd

    I also think this would further open the door to government takeover of the medical profession, as the government would eventually be determining how and what doctors practice in exchange for a small amount of relief of liability insurance payments.

  • MassachusettsPCP

    Not going to work. Any medmal lawyer worth his salt will comb the record, find something that indicated at 1-2% chance of event x or diagnosis y is in play, to argue to a jury that the guidelines are not rigid, but meant to be interpreted BY THE PHYSICIAN to a patient’s individual circumstances and when clinically appropriate, to order this test or undertake that action. Doctor knew guidelines, doctor realized or should have realized this 1-2% chance of event x or diagnosis y, and rigidly followed cookbook medicine, ignoring or incompetent of event x or diagnosis y that led to my client having a serious negative outcome. Doctor was negligent.

  • rezmed09

    Many studies and practice guidelines have a myriad of exclusion criterion. Practice standards often do not fit individual patients, and patient histories often contain so many different complaints that , when it comes to trial, practice standards are useless.

    I’m for the caps on payments. Start there.

    • Matt

      Why would arbitrary caps on payments help anything? They haven’t seemed to improve the practice climate anywhere they’ve been tried. California has had them for decades and by most reports it’s a miserable place to practice. Nor do they seem to lessen the aount of malpractice.

      Maybe MassachusettsPCP is not really right, but remember, the lawyer can’t argue that without a physician to testify. The lawyer can’t even get it into evidence since he/she is not a witness. However, going to trial to argue a 1-2% chance doesn’t make much sense.

      But you can’t complain the standard of care varies too much and then refuse to try and standardize it.

  • Michael F. Mirochna, MD

    I’m hard pressed to see one truly evidenced based guideline.

  • The Happy Hospitalist

    Can you imagine how many lawyers in Congress would be sued and disbarred. if they’re performance was based on “guidelines” and “evidence” and “outcomes”. We’d have nobody in Congress.

    Maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

    • http://www.medicaljustice.com Shane Stadler

      Now that is a great idea!

    • Matt

      Not to mention folks like Dr. Coburn!

  • PAULMD

    Most everything I do is outside of “evidence based guidlines” but withing standard of care for my specialty. The evidence usually comes a few years after implementation of the treatment that is already being given. So not only does my specialty not have a “safe harbor” to swim in but by abiding the standard of care principles we become low hanging fruit for the med mal folks?

  • William Nuesslein

    There are at least two problems with malpractice litigation. One is that clearly incorrect verdicts and settlements are obtained by lawyers playing on scientifically illiterate jurors. Bear in mind that over 50% of Americans can not comprehend that electrons are components of atoms.

    The second problem comes from malpractice insurance being adverse outcome insurance. A child has an expensive problem and insurance companies have money..
    But here the face amount of the implied contract is set after the event. Caps mitigate this insurance error. You have to buy insurance with a given face amount before you are on your death bed.

    I would get rid of all malpractice litigation and replace it with adverse outcome policies sold directly to patients. Some minimum coverage could be supplied by the State. To win a lottery, one has to purchse tickets in advance of the draw.

Trending