Search

Communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs) are intended to promote accountability, transparency, and learning after adverse events. In this article we address five key challenges to the programs' future success: implementation fidelity, the evidence base for CRPs and their link to patient safety, fair compensation of harmed patients, alignment of CRP design with participants' needs, and public policy on CRPs. While the field has arrived at an understanding of the core communication-and-resolution practices, limited adherence fuels skepticism that programs are meeting the needs of patients and families who have been injured by care or improving patient safety. Adherence to communication-and-resolution practices could be enhanced by adopting measures of CRP quality and implementing programs in a comprehensive, principled, and systematic manner. Of particular importance is offering fair compensation to patients in CRPs and supporting their right to attorney representation. There is evidence that the use of CRPs reduces liability costs, but research on other outcomes is limited. Additional research is especially needed on the links between CRPs and quality and on the programs' alignment with patients' and families' needs. By honoring principles of transparency, quality improvement, and patient and family empowerment, organizations can use their CRPs to help revitalize the medical profession.

As hospital, physician, and health insurance markets consolidate and change in response to health care reform, some commentators have called for vigorous enforcement of the federal antitrust laws to prevent the acquisition and exercise of market power. In health care, however, stricter antitrust enforcement will benefit consumers only if it accounts for the competitive distortions caused by the sector's long history of government regulation. This article directs policy makers to a neglected dimension of health care competition that has been altered by regulation: the product. Competition may have failed to significantly lower costs, increase access, or improve quality in health care because we have been buying and selling the wrong things. Competition policy makers-meaning both antitrust enforcers and regulators-should force the health care industry to define and market products that can be assembled and warranted to consumers while keeping emerging sectors such as mHealth free from overregulation, wasteful subsidy, and appropriation by established insurer and provider interests., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Physician leadership is required to improve the efficiency and reliability of the US health care system, but many physicians remain lukewarm about the changes needed to attain these goals. Malpractice liability-a sore spot for decades-may exacerbate physician resistance. The politics of malpractice have become so lawyer-centric that recognizing the availability of broader gains from trade in tort reform is an important insight for health policy makers. To obtain relief from malpractice liability, physicians may be willing to accept other policy changes that more directly improve access to care and reduce costs. For example, the American Medical Association might broker an agreement between health reform proponents and physicians to enact federal legislation that limits malpractice liability and simultaneously restructures fee-for-service payment, heightens transparency regarding the quality and cost of health care services, and expands practice privileges for other health professionals. There are also reasons to believe that tort reform can make ongoing health care delivery reforms work better, in addition to buttressing health reform efforts that might otherwise fail politically.

The study of adverse event disclosure has typically focused on the words that are said to the patient and family members after an event. But there is also growing interest in determining how patients and their families can be involved in the analysis of the adverse events that harmed them. We conducted a two-phase study to understand whether patients and families who have experienced an adverse event should be involved in the postevent analysis following the disclosure of a medical error. We first conducted twenty-eight interviews with patients, family members, clinicians, and administrators to determine the extent to which patients and family members are included in event analysis processes and to learn how their experiences might be improved. Then we reviewed our interview findings with patients and health care experts at a one-day national conference in October 2011. After evaluating the findings, conference participants concluded that increasing the involvement of patients and their families in the event analysis process was desirable but needed to be structured in a patient-centered way to be successful. We conclude by describing when and how information from patients might be incorporated into the event analysis process and by offering recommendations on how this might be accomplished.

Communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs) in health care organizations seek to identify medical injuries promptly; ensure that they are disclosed to patients compassionately; pursue timely resolution through patient engagement, explanation, and, where appropriate, apology and compensation; and use lessons learned to improve patient safety. CRPs have existed for years, but they are being tested in new settings and primed for broad implementation through grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. These projects do not require changing laws. However, grantees' experiences suggest that the path to successful dissemination of CRPs would be smoother if the legal environment supported them. State and federal policy makers should try to allay potential defendants' fears of litigation (for example, by protecting apologies from use in court), facilitate patient participation (for example, by ensuring access to legal representation), and address the reputational and economic concerns of health care providers (for example, by clarifying practices governing National Practitioner Data Bank reporting and payers' financial recourse following medical error).

The culmination of a century's effort to enact universal coverage in the United States is a law with an uninspiring title, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and an even more awkward acronym, PPACA. The Obama administration has decided to call the legislation the Affordable Care Act, but the expansion of health coverage that the law sets in motion has no name, and therefore no identity. It badly needs one.

Geographic information system (GIS) mapping can help communities visualize the health of their neighborhoods and identify opportunities for improvement. In Austin, Texas, Children's Optimal Health, a nonprofit association, used GIS to map the prevalence of obesity among middle school children and to identify contributory factors. The maps indicated that obesity is a problem in all Austin middle schools. Two neighborhoods outside downtown Austin have particularly high concentrations of overweight and obese students. Maps also showed that the neighborhoods have different proportions of fast-food outlets, grocery stores selling fresh produce, green recreation space, and students failing cardiovascular testing. The mapping exercise spurred community groups to propose obesity interventions tailored to each neighborhood.

Between 1993 and today, health policy experts have reached consensus that quality assurance, cost discipline, and equitable access depend on delivering health care at times, in places, and in ways much different from those to which we are accustomed. The challenge for the next generation of health reformers is to improve coverage by improving care. This can happen only if reform legislation has a theory for success, collective social meaning, and political champions.

The extent to which liability costs cause physicians to restrict their scope of practice or cease practicing is controversial in policy debates over malpractice "crises." We used insurance department administrative data to analyze specialist physician scope-of-practice changes and exits in Pennsylvania in 1993-2002. In most specialties the proportions of high-risk specialists restricting their scope of practice did not increase during the crisis; however, the supply of obstetrician-gynecologists decreased by 8 percent in the three years following premium increases in 1999. We discuss methodological issues that could explain the disparate findings regarding physician supply effects in studies using administrative data sets and survey data.

The merits of tax exemption for nonprofit health care providers have been hotly debated for decades. Mark Schlesinger and Brad Gray provide a useful, dispassionate meta-analysis of past research; they conclude that there are real differences in the performance of nonprofit and for-profit hospitals and nursing homes, although they vary along several key dimensions. Unfortunately, their findings offer no insight on whether these differences are large enough to justify a sizable subsidy and whether it makes more sense to use an undifferentiated subsidy tied to status (current practice), or a graduated subsidy tied to quantifiable and objective measures of performance.

The rhetoric of malpractice reform is at fever pitch, but political advocacy does not necessarily reflect grassroots opinion. To determine whether the ongoing liability crisis has greatly reduced physicians' professional satisfaction, we surveyed specialist physicians in Pennsylvania. We found widespread discontent among physicians practicing in high-liability environments, which seems to be compounded by other financial and administrative pressures. Opinion alone should not determine public policy, but physicians' perceptions matter for two reasons. First, perceptions influence behavior with respect to practice environment and clinical decision making. Second, perceptions influence the physician-patient relationship and the interpersonal quality of care.

Although the most visible manifestations of medical malpractice involve patient safety and the legal process, the availability and affordability of liability insurance largely determine the direction of medical malpractice policy. Scientific and industrial developments since the first modern malpractice crisis in the 1970s reveal major problems with the structure and regulation of liability insurance. Comprehensive reforms that approach medical malpractice insurance as a health policy problem are needed, and the Medicare program may have a major role to play.

Antitrust litigation involving hospitals is common. This paper describes recent developments and underlying issues in antitrust law with respect to hospital-hospital relations, hospital-physician relations, and hospital-payer relations. A key unanswered question in each of these areas is how government regulation and public purchasing affect competitive markets for hospital services.

Pennsylvania, like many states around the country, is in the throes of a "tort crisis." The cost of professional liability insurance for physicians and hospitals is escalating rapidly, as its availability shrinks. Many hospitals are poorly situated to bear these rising costs, especially in an environment of flat reimbursement rates and poor investment returns. This paper examines the impact of the liability crisis on Pennsylvania hospitals and the strategies being used to weather the storm, including alternative risk financing and closer ties between hospitals and affiliated physicians. It concludes by connecting these trends to larger medical malpractice policy issues.

Political debate over medical malpractice reform seldom takes meaningful account of its policy context, including the emerging science of patient safety. Instead, stakeholders on both sides use the rhetoric of patient safety to support entrenched positions on hardened proposals such as capping damages and limiting access to information about errors. Despite its déjà vu quality, the current malpractice crisis can only be understood and addressed as the product of changes in the health care system since the last crisis nearly twenty years ago--changes that also informed the patient safety movement. Patient safety may therefore serve as a bridge between medical liability and health policy.

Competition law (encompassing both antitrust and consumer protection) is the forgotten stepchild of health care quality. This paper introduces readers to competition law and policy, describes its institutional features and analytic framework, surveys the ways in which competition law has influenced quality-based competition, and outlines some areas in need of further development. Competition law protects the competitive process--not individual competitors. It guides the structural features of the health care system and the conduct of providers as they navigate it. Competition law does not privilege quality over other competitive goals but honors consumers' preferences with respect to trade-offs among quality, price, and other attributes of goods and services.

Policymakers are considering legislative changes that would increase managed care organizations' exposure to civil liability for withholding coverage or failing to deliver needed care. Using a combination of empirical information and theoretical analysis, we assess the likely responses of health plans and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan sponsors to an expansion of liability, and we evaluate the policy impact of those moves. We conclude that the direct costs of liability are uncertain but that the prospect of litigation may have other important effects on coverage decision making, information exchange, risk contracting, and the extent of employers' involvement in health coverage.

The emergence of a competitive market in health care portends an increasingly important role for antitrust law. Managed care is even more difficult than fee-for-service practice to analyze in the quantitative, economic terms required by modern principles of antitrust law. This paper examines a recent court decision authored by a prominent judge and antitrust scholar: Blue Cross and Blue Shield United of Wisconsin v. Marshfield Clinic. The purpose of the paper is not to describe the law as it is or as it should be, but to illustrate the assumptions and gaps in understanding that can occur when courts are asked to evaluate this complex and rapidly changing industry without the benefit of sound empirical research.

The failure of national health reform confirmed in many ways the conservative nature of the American legal system. Legislatures, regulatory agencies, and courts usually find themselves in a reactive posture, responding to groups and individuals aggrieved by changing circumstances. The rapid transformation of the U.S. health care system through managed care presents an extreme example of this phenomenon, involving billions of dollars, millions of lives, and thousands of existing laws. Over the next few years the legal system will face a host of difficult issues deriving from the integration of health care financing and delivery, and the consolidation of fragmented providers into large corporations and contractual networks. What emerges may be neither logical nor consistent but no doubt will reflect the intricate interplay of societal and individual interests in health care.