The US Needs Tort Replacement, Not Just "Reform"

Abstract

The US medical malpractice system is analyzed using a systems thinking approach: comparing intended purposes -by the designers -with the expected outcomes -by the Public. Both intended as well as unintended consequences of the medical malpractice system are described. Differences between actual outcomes and expectations explain why there is much dissatisfaction.The tort model is shown to be inappropriate for adjudication of medical injuries. Because the system is conceptually flawed, no amount of 'reform' can produce the intended outcomes nor can any modification of the existing system satisfy the Public. An alternative system is proposed based on No-Fault principles.