Analyzing whether physicians use cesarean sections (c-sections) as defensive medicine (DM) has proven difficult. Using natural experiments arising out of Oregon court decisions overturning a state legislative cap on non-economic damages in tort cases, we analyze the impact of patient conditions on estimates of DM. Consistent with theory, we find heterogeneous impacts of tort laws across patient conditions. When medical exigencies dictate a c-section, tort laws have no impact on physician decisions. When physicians have latitude in their decision making, we find evidence of DM. When we estimate a model combining all women and not accounting for patient conditions (such as models estimated in previous studies) we obtain a result which is the opposite of DM, which we call offensive medicine (OM). The OM result appears to arise out of a bias in the difference-in-differences estimator associated with changes in the marginal distributions of patient conditions in control and treatment groups. The changes in the marginal distributions appear to arise from the impact of tort law on the market for midwives (substitutes for physicians for low-risk women). Our analysis suggests that not accounting for theoretically expected heterogeneity in physician reactions to changes in tort laws may produce biased estimates of DM.

The cost of clinical negligence claims continues to rise, despite efforts to reduce this now ageing burden to the National Health Service (NHS) in England. From a welfarist perspective, reforms are needed to reduce avoidable harm to patients and to settle claims fairly for both claimants and society. Uncertainty in the estimation of quanta of damages, better known as financial settlements, is an important yet poorly characterised driver of societal outcomes. This reflects wider limitations to evidence informing clinical negligence policy, which has been discussed in recent literature. There is an acute need for practicable, evidence-based solutions that address clinical negligence issues, and these should complement long-standing efforts to improve patient safety. Using 15 claim cases from one NHS Trust between 2004 and 2016, the quality of evidence informing claims was appraised using methods from evidence-based medicine. Most of the evidence informing clinical negligence claims was found to be the lowest quality possible (expert opinion). The extent to which the quality of evidence represents a normative deviance from scientific standards is discussed. To address concerns about the level of uncertainty involved in deriving quanta, we provide five recommendations for medico-legal stakeholders that are designed to reduce avoidable bias and correct potential market failures.

Step therapy, also termed fail-first policy, describes a practice of insurance and pharmacy benefit management companies denying reimbursement for a specific treatment until after other treatments have first been found ineffective (i.e. failed). Laws to limit step therapy have been passed in 29 states of the United States. Using extrapolated data on fully insured employees, we find that except for New York and New Mexico, enacted State laws don't apply to even one-third of a state's population. Using the more robust Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) data, which do not include fully insured employees, we find that only 2–10% of a state's population is covered. Advocating for these laws has been an expensive and time-consuming process, likely to become more so for the 21 states without such laws. The laws that have been enacted can be near impossible, to enforce, and loopholes exist. As a result, using KFF data, more than 90% of people in the United States with health insurance may still be unable to access the treatment chosen as most appropriate for them with their physician. Based on these data, we conclude federal step-therapy legislation is needed.

Scholars and journalists have devoted considerable attention to understanding the circumstances in which Americans receive surprise medical bills. Previous research on this issue has focused on the scope of the problem, including the conditions that are most likely to lead to surprise bills. However, the existing literature has almost exclusively relied on claims data, limiting our understanding of consumer experiences and attitudes toward policy changes to address surprise billing. Using a survey administered to a nationally representative sample of 4998 Americans, we analyze consumer experiences with surprise billing, knowledge of the issue, how concerned Americans are about receiving surprise bills and how past experiences influence policy preferences toward federal action on surprise billing. Our analysis demonstrates that knowledge and concern about surprise billing are the highest among the educated and those who have previously received a surprise bill. These factors also predict support for federal policy action, with high levels of support for federal policy action across the population, including among both liberals and conservatives. However, more detailed federal policy proposals receive significantly less support among Americans, suggesting that stand-alone policy action may not be viable. Our results show bipartisan support among American consumers for federal action on surprise billing in the abstract but no consistent views on specific policy proposals.

We investigated the impacts of Medicaid expansion on New York county total health spending and specifics of health spending, including health services, public health facilities and public health administration. Little research considered the financial effect of Medicaid expansion on local governments while well reported are its influences on uninsured rates and health services utilization. New York counties have contributed to health in their boundaries by providing or funding public health services, and supporting a part of the non-federal share of Medicaid expenditures and uncompensated care. Medicaid expansion can reduce the size of county expenditures for health by enrolling more previously uninsured population in the program and offering more generous federal funding for the expanded Medicaid. We offer empirical evidence that Medicaid expansion was associated with reduced county health spending.

This paper explores policy mechanisms behind New Zealand's remarkable track record of cost containment in public pharmaceutical spending, contrasting with most other advanced economies. We drew on a review of official policy documents and 28 semi-structured expert interviews. We found that decision making in pricing and reimbursement policy was dominated by a small group of managers at the Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC), the country's drug reimbursement and Health Technology Assessment Agency, who negotiated pharmaceutical prices on behalf of the public payer. In formal negotiation over patented pharmaceutical prices these managers applied an array of pricing strategies, most notably, ‘bundling’ consisting of discounted package deals for multiple pharmaceuticals, and ‘play-off tenders’, whereby two or more pharmaceutical companies bid for exclusive contracts. The key pricing strategy for generic drugs, in contrast, was ‘blind-tenders’ taking the form of an annual bidding process for supply contracts. An additional contextual condition on bargaining over pharmaceutical prices was an indirect strategy that involved the cultivation of the PHARMAC's ‘negotiation leverage’. We derived two cost containment mechanisms consisting in the relationship between pricing strategy options and various reimbursement actors. Our findings shed light on aspects of the institutional design of drug reimbursement that may promote the effective use of competitive negotiations of pharmaceutical prices, including specific pricing strategies, by specialist public payer institutions. On this basis, we formulate recommendations for countries seeking to develop or reform policy frameworks to better meet the budgetary challenge posed by pharmaceutical expenditure.