The essence of tort reform is limiting possible medical malpractice lawsuits, which might lower the costs as a result, as fewer tests would be procured. In some states, they are passed to limit noneconomic damages (Baum, 2020). Other possible methods include limiting punitive damages or joint‐and‐several liability (Agarwal, 2019). Thus, the advocates of tort reform stand for making medical help cheaper and, therefore, more available.
The problem in question has had its own history over the years. The number of medical malpractice claims has been increasing for the last fifty years (Agarwal, 2019). The growing number of the claims and liability premiums led to major insurers leaving the problematic states or dropping medical malpractice from its list of possible insurance cases, directly affecting the availability of care services and insurance (Born, 2020). In the USA, medical malpractice law is under the control of the state governments (Agarwal, 2019). The possible reasons for states to adopt tort reform are high malpractice premiums and health care costs, an increase in defensive medical practices and dwindling physician supply (Agarwal, 2019). Therefore, tort reforms address an important matter, which has many reasons to require attention.
The tort reform advocates list many benefits of the possible reform. Born (2020) claims that tort reform reduces reserving volatility, fostering insurance market stability. Another argument is that smaller practices have too limited resources and are likely unable to recover after a large lawsuit. They insist that caps on noneconomic damage do not influence quality of care and have limited effect on physician supply, while other reforms have uncertain impact on medical outcomes. Baum (2020) claims that the reason for this is the size of the damage caps. With the newly-adopted caps ranging from $400,000 in Oklahoma and Missouri to $1 million in Tennessee, the impact of tort reform is the less the less the state caps is. Those with the cap of $250,000 often have no effect (Baum, 2020). Thus, while the advocates claim that tort form is beneficial for the market and do not limit the quality of healthcare, it is admitted that the reform is not suitable for all states.
The attempts to realize tort reform in practice have not been without their flaws, however. Agarwal (2019), having examined and analyzed significant literature on tort reforms, claims that in the recent years legislative activity has decreased. Increasing safety has once again become a concern, and tort system is now associated with unnecessary spending. The author’s conclusion is that common tort reform may not be sufficient and newer methods should be considered (Agarwal, 2019). Therefore, some of the advocates of the reform admit that the tort reform is not as efficient as its supporters claim.
The opponents of tort reforms represent the aforementioned opinion. They claim that punishment system, as they call the reform, harms encouragement for the building of safer systems of care (Black et al., 2021), which is exactly in line with recent tendencies. Other arguments against tort reform are that medical malpractice litigations will always be slow and noisy, and that medical malpractice claims are insignificant compared to the total health spending, just 0.3 percent (Black et al., 2021). Thus, the main points of the opponents of the reforms are that tort reforms harm safety, and that they are too small of a part of total money spending to influence anything on a strategic level.
As examined, tort reform is a complicated and controversial matter. Despite its advocates insisting that its benefits are greater than its downsides, those who oppose it have a valid reason to defend it. The author of the present essay is more inclined to assume the careful position on the matter; tort reforms represent a vital need of the American society – namely, to make healthcare more accessible. However, it is problematic that tort reforms may diminish the safety of healthcare. While the author of the present essay does not support the notions that legal operations cannot be changed and that smaller financial sums are not significant, they still stand for the more careful approach to the tort reform, which is in line with some tort reform supporters who admit that other measures must be developed.
References
Agarwal, R., Gupta, A., & Gupta, S. (2019). The impact of tort reform on defensive medicine, quality of care, and physician supply: A systematic review. Health Services Research.
Baum, C. L. (2020). The effects of medical malpractice tort reform on physician supply an analysis of legislative changes from 2009 to 2016. Southern Economic Journal, 87(2), 540–575.
Black, B. S., Hyman, D. A., Paik, M. S., Sage, W. M., & Silver, C. (2021). Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works, Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped. Cato Institute.
Born, P. H., Eastman, E. M., & Viscusi, W. K. (2020). Reducing Medical Malpractice Loss Reserve Volatility Through Tort Reform. North American Actuarial Journal, 24(4), 626–646.