Home Duke University Press
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2000 25(3):499-526; DOI:10.1215/03616878-25-3-499
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Studdert, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Brennan, T. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Duke University Press

The Jury Is Still In: Florida's Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan after a Decade

David M. Studdert
RAND Corporation

Lori A. Fritz and Troyen A. Brennan
Harvard School of Public Health and Brigham and Women's Hospital

Abstract.

Florida's Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (NICA) is the most significant experiment with compensation for medical injury yet undertaken in the United States. As NICA enters its second decade of operation, maintaining the scheme's jurisdictional integrity has emerged as a key challenge for policy makers in Florida. We explore the relationship that has emerged between NICA and the tort system as competing avenues for families to obtain compensation for severe birth-related neurological injury. By linking NICA claims data with data on malpractice claims filed in Florida, we found a lively persistence of "bad baby" litigation despite NICA's implementation. Many families pursued claims in both fora. An explanation for these results can be traced to key features of the plan's design—primarily, the way in which "exclusive" jurisdiction over injuries is determined and the restrictive nature of the compensation criteria used. Our findings may help efforts to consolidate NICA's role in injury compensation and inform future design of alternative compensation systems.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
P. Davis, R. Lay-Yee, R. Briant, and A. Scott
Modeling Eligibility under National Systems of Compensation for Treatment Injury
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, April 1, 2006; 31(2): 295 - 319.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 AAP NewsHome page
D. Marcus
States' no-fault compensation programs fail to solve malpractice crisis
AAP News, October 1, 2005; 26(10): 18 - 19.
[Full Text]

Home page
 J Law Med EthicsHome page
R. R. Bovbjerg and L. R. Tancredi
Liability Reform Should Make Patients Safer: "Avoidable Classes of Events" are a Key Improvement
J. Law Med. Ethics, September 1, 2005; 33(3): 478 - 500.
[PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
P. Davis, R. Lay-Yee, J. Fitzjohn, P. Hider, R. Briant, and S. Schug
Compensation for Medical Injury in New Zealand: Does "No-Fault" Increase the Level of Claims Making and Reduce Social and Clinical Selectivity?
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, October 1, 2002; 27(5): 833 - 854.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
D. M. Studdert and T. A. Brennan
No-Fault Compensation for Medical Injuries: The Prospect for Error Prevention
JAMA, July 11, 2001; 286(2): 217 - 223.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Copyright 2000 by Duke University Press