Surmounting Myths and Mindsets in Medical Malpractice

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

Medical malpractice is in the news, again. The early 2000s have seen the third upheaval in medical liability insurance over the last three decades. States have as always been the first responders, but liability reform has also become a high-profile federal issue. Physicians, their liability insurers, and their allies promote state and federal tort reform to curb lawsuits. Their key goal is a "cap" of $250,000 on awards for pain and suffering, as pioneered in California in 1975. In opposition, plaintiffs' attorneys and their allies promote an unlimited "right to sue."

In many contentious debates, policymakers confidently assume that the truth lies somewhere between the clashing extremes. Not in medical malpractice. Its key partisans are defendant doctors and plaintiff attorneys, and even groups claiming to represent the broader public sound very much like the partisans themselves. Moreover, the sometimes apocalyptic rhetoric masks the underlying reality that proponents and opponents of tort reform both accept today's system—reformers just want somewhat less of it.

The routinized debate sounds much the same as a generation ago, and neither side has learned enough from recent advances in patient safety. Both sides spin myths from selected anecdotes or factoids and tout non-peer reviewed "studies" that lack reliable methodology. Minds are very set, indeed.

This brief first highlights the top five myths on each side. Most contain elements of truth but also substantial exaggeration and misdirection. It next presents the top five real problems, from the public perspective. It is the public's medical injuries that the lawsuit and liability insurance "system" prevents or compensates ... or does not. And it is the public that ultimately bears the costs. The brief ends with suggestions for new, constructive ways to provide compensation and protect patients. Citations of literature appear at the end of this brief.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:

Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.

Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.