Identification in the United States,

¶ … Identification In the United States, the present medical liability system has failed the public good in a variety of ways. In fact, empirical evidence continues to rise regarding the medical malpractice system's failure to adequately compensate injured parties and alongside concerns with the system itself's ability to provide adequate health care (Studdert and Brennan). Further, the system is not leading to increased quality with regard to the standard of care provided.

In fact, according to a report by NIP entitled "To Err is Human," preventable adverse events are a leading cause of death in the United States (NIM, 2000, p.26). Instead of learning from errors and reducing the amount of errors taking place in the medical arena, providers cover up for one another by failing to report abuses and negligence for fear of negative reprisal, shame, and/or guilt (Leape). In fact, after "To Err is Human" was released in 2000, the medical community set a goal of reducing medical error by 50%.

As of 2008, according to The Agency for Health Care Research & Quality (AHRQ), overall safety has lagged behind other areas of quality improvement. Moreover, doctors still don't have a system in place for monitoring medical errors and adverse events (Levin, 2008, p. 4). If the system were regulated by a federal "no fault" mandate, then at the level of the healthcare professional, there would be an incentive for those close to any health acquired condition to speak up in order to remedy any potential danger and/or resultant liability (Leape, 2001).

The issue at hand is raised by patient advocate organizations as well as organizations representing the interest of plaintiff attorneys. 2. Background The healthcare professionals and administrators are the ones whom would know best if there was a deficiency or some kind of hospital acquired condition(s) that might adversely affect the delivery of medical care and services in their particular office or zone of care.

Moreover, many studies in varied environments, health care included, have shown that the overwhelming majority of errors-95% or more-are made by well-trained, conscientious people who are trying to do a good job; however, they are, in fact, caught in "buggy" systems that "set them up" to make mistakes. As the system stands today, there is great incentive for the healthcare provider to remain silent about these systems errors in order to circumvent any possible blame, shame, and/or any potential liability (Leape, 2001).

Silence in this context can be lethal and/or life-threatening. Accordingly, on an ethical and pragmatic level, the federal government has a duty to intervene as the system as it stands does not provide an incentive to report deficiencies let alone remedy deficiencies nor does it serve the overall public good 3. Stakeholders The insurance defense lawyers association as well as plaintiff bar associations have a great deal to lose through medical malpractice tort reform.

Likewise, medical malpractice insurance companies also have an interest in the legislation as do the professional organizations representing healthcare providers and hospitals. The general public has a stake in the issue at hand since their insurance rates are affected by medical malpractice claims, settlements, and verdicts; and, moreover, the quality of their medical care is also adversely affected due the current state of the medical malpractice system (Leape, 2001). 4.

Issue Statement Should the federal government hold heath care institutions and healthcare workers accountable for hospital acquired conditions though they may not be directly responsible? B. Policy Goals and Options 5. Policy Objectives The underlying policy here seeks to hold health care providers liable for negligence due to a health acquired condition so as to ensure the safety of the public and improve the overall quality of care delivered to the public. 6.

Policy Options and Alternatives If this policy were enacted, then the individuals whom are most knowledgeable about how the medical setting should function will have a legal duty and an economic incentive to raise a red flag should a hospital or health care agency be operating below the applicable standard of care or have a health acquired condition. By providing this incentive, then injured plaintiffs and.