The answers to this question depend entirely on whom you ask. Take the concept of defensive medicine. Lawyers typically deny that this exists, whilst many medics believe it does. Better quality healthcare ought in theory to reduce medical negligence claims - but the highest sum for claims is in the USA. The place to start off IMO is the Michigan Model, where the state introduced legal reforms accompanied with a different way of dealing with claims in the public healthcare system.

It depends on whether you're looking at government managed, or purely private hospitals. America is a litigious culture at the best of times. And in comparison with most western liberal-democracies, tends to be in love with expensive private medicine for those who can afford it.

In the UK, the National Health Service provides most health care, free at the point of delivery. The statistics suggest that this gives the best "bang for the buck." Meaning best outcomes for the cost, on average. The downside here tends to be underfunding, leading to longer waiting times for non-emergency cases.

In the UK, litigation has increased in recent decades. But it is difficult to bring successful cases. You have to be able to prove not merely that you were mistreated, but that the mistreatment contributed to an actual decline in your health. This requirement minimises claims, as does the fact that legal action might only recover the monetary cost to the patient of the decline in health. It's very rare for British courts to allow purely punative damages.

Combine these legal arrangements with high quality training and management practices, and your health care system may just survive another winter!

Christopher NOCK

From the Doctor point of view, Tell the patient and family if deceased immediately what happened. Tell the truth. Be empathetic. Share your own feelings. Apologize if appropriate. Be brief. Listen.

doctors who do this are rarely sued. This is from surgeons founding Stanford Medical School here.

From medical society, point of view, random anonymous ratings and reporting song fellow doctors that can be followed up i side channels, alcoholism, drug addiction, eye sight/ motor issues, etc. can best behandled by colleagues.

From provider point of view, mandatory arbitration.ef Kaiser. Dead end.

From state legislature point of view, we want lawyers to sue and win often to get trial lawyer campaign donations.

From judicial point of view, neutral fact finder and required non binding arbitration.

From attorney point of view, review all cases lost to see if perjury was committed, ethical violations, cases filed i bad faith, vexatious my litigants, etc, respond accordingly.

From insurance point of view, more casesare BETTER to increase premiums that can be charged, and force all doctors , who re generally more risk adverse than others, to carry big insurance.

From public policy point of view, require accurate risk basis for individual premiums, perhaps require premium return on retirement with certain track records, comparable to whole life insurance.

From employer pint of view, want to minimize harm to patients to indirectly reduce costs slightly.

from a systems point of view, eg Pask, Ashby, Von Foerster, integrating information and decision making/advice in real time by parallel decsiion making.

There is a also a better legislative fix I will discuss with appropriate persons.

From start up point of view these approaches can be somewhat integrated and rationalized in a app paradigm using lines of existing information flow.

You May call me 6503879447 I am no longer teaching at Stanford.

A no-fault scheme like in New Zealand?

https://www.acc.co.nz/im-injured/injuries-we-cover/what-we-cover/?smooth-scroll=content-after-navs

At the university level, teach the upcoming nurses and doctors and administrators the laws about what constitutes good care. Each country has case law precedents that dictate to other lawyers what facts and scenarios the judges and juries are basing their pro-plaintiff decisions on. So lawyers look for those similar scenarios and, apparently, they are not hard to find. At the University level, learn from those court decisions and teach all healthcare professionals what standards the COURTS are expecting, since it is apparent, due to the amazing number of successful lawsuits for poor care, that the schools are not teaching and/or the employers are not enforcing what the courts and juries are finding wrong with healthcare standards currently in place all over the world.

At the hospital/clinic level, set policies for employees that dictate what expectations you have on those employees at the hospitals to implement those new policies and base the policies not only old traditional standards, but the court rulings that are finding that the traditional standards are not being enforced, or even in some cases, expected. The adage "do no harm" isn't working, so some type of enforcement is necessary.

In lieu of either of those actions being put in place, increase your insurance coverage, because the cases will keep coming.

Again the success of litigation is a US problem, NOT ours.

NOCK

Your response is confusing, since the issue was with regard to escalating medical litigation costs. If litigation is not successful, then why is it even an issue? I know of no attorneys in any country that would litigate with no hope of success.

Well, there's an awful lot here! Yesterday, compensation was ordered by court for a woman whose complaint was that there just too many Spaniards staying at "her" hotel in Benidorm, Spain. Work that one out.

My point is that the US is not the world (despite its Bandaid song). It's more litigious, for whatever reason. Partly in this case because much medical matter is privately provided. It's courts are happy to award massive punative damages which sometimes appear designed to destroy foreign businesses, Bayer being the latest. Too many legal decisions there appear to be based on opinion not fact. It's not a medical or legal system I'd have any faith in. But it's not really any of my business if you keep it to yourselves. But you don't now. Too many American law firm and medical companies operating here now, in my opinion. And that's my business.

NOCK

First and foremost, health personnel must be fully aware of the patient rights and litigation costs attendant to infringement of those entrenched fundamental rights, and act in accordance with such knowledge.

Second, where possible,out of court settlement should be preferred.The benefits of this route are many, and mostly to the benefit of both parties involved:less time consuming,cost effective, private matters are kept private and doctor-patient relationship is less strained.