Premium
Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act Ballot Initiative for Cost of Living Adjustment
Author(s) -
Yang Y. Tony
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
world medical and health policy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.326
H-Index - 11
ISSN - 1948-4682
DOI - 10.1002/wmh3.141
Subject(s) - ballot , compensation (psychology) , liability , inflation (cosmology) , battle , malpractice , state (computer science) , public economics , empirical evidence , political science , public administration , economics , actuarial science , law , psychology , voting , social psychology , politics , philosophy , physics , archaeology , epistemology , algorithm , theoretical physics , computer science , history
Californians overwhelmingly voted down Proposition 46 on November 4, 2014, an initiative that would have adjusted the noneconomic medical malpractice cap for inflation. The high‐spending battle over Prop. 46 pitted two special‐interest groups in the state against each other: doctors and trial lawyers. The bitter fight over the initiative created the most expensive campaign in the state in 2014. This commentary summarizes current empirical evidence of the effects of caps. It analyzes whether the initiative would have accomplished what proponents claimed and whether the initiative would have led to the problems opponents feared. It concludes that in light of the current evidence of the impact caps have, this proposed adjustment for inflation would likely have had relatively limited effects. The public's collective energy would be best spent deliberating other measures that may develop a more just, reliable, and accessible liability system that promotes patient safety.