Discussions regarding defensive medical practice often result in proposals for public policy actions. Such proposals generally are premised on assumptions about defensive medicine, namely, that it (a) is driven by physicians' legal anxieties, (b) constitutes bad medical practice, (c) drives up health care costs, (d) varies depending on a jurisdiction's particular tort law climate, (e) depends on medical specialty and a physician's own prior experience as a malpractice defendant, and (f) is a rational response to actual legal risks confronting physicians. This article examines a sample of recent literature focusing on defensive medicine and finds that the messages conveyed vary widely, helping to explain the confusion experienced by many policymakers trying to improve the quality and affordability of health care.
Keywords: Medical malpractice; defensive medicine; health care costs; tort reform.