Feature

Pretrial screening panels: Do they reduce frivolous claims?


 

Broader studies needed

Little national data exists on the overall impact of medical review panels.

Pretrial screening panels had no significant effect on claims frequency or compensation amounts, according to a 2016 report from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

That report looked at seven state tort reform strategies and concluded that data on pretrial screening panels was older and more limited, compared with that of other reforms. Because few early studies identified any notable effects of screening panels, researchers in later studies typically excluded screening panels from the models being tested, according to the MedPAC report.

Michelle Mello of Stanford University

Dr. Michelle Mello

Michelle M. Mello, PhD, a law professor at Stanford (Calif.) University and coauthor of the MedPAC report, said she was uncertain why there has not been closer study of pretrial screening panels in recent years. Pretrial screening panels probably have little effect because they apply a low standard to complaints, and thus, few claims get weeded out, she said in an interview. “The statutes don’t require them to do much more than say the plaintiff has a plausible case.”

The last comprehensive study on the effects of pretrial screening panels was published almost 10 years ago.

Researchers at Virginia Military University in Lexington evaluated panel data collected during 1991-2004 and data on malpractice awards from the National Practitioner Data Bank for the analysis. The study found review panels had no significant effect on the number of malpractice awards. However, results showed that states with noneconomic damages caps had markedly fewer malpractice awards (Virginia Economic Journal. 2010;15:35-45).

“The fact that damage caps are binding, while [medical malpractice review panel] recommendations are not, could explain the significance of the former, and the insignificance of the latter,” the authors wrote. “It seems reasonable that reforms must be binding, unavoidable, and obligatory to have real effects.”

Pages

Recommended Reading

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing fraught with validity concerns
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
MAT access helps address opioid use disorder
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
How to incorporate the gender wage gap into contract negotiations
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
CMS plan will incentivize generic drug use
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Researchers to be honored at ASPHO
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Beyond disclosure: Industry relationships face renewed scrutiny in oncology
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Report: Part B funds stable, hospital trust running out
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Navigating the Oncology Care Model
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
ICYMI: NIH renames, streamlines gene therapy committee
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Systematic review: Patient navigation programs improve outcomes, have financial benefits
MDedge Hematology and Oncology