physicians to adopt a collaborative mode of communication and build better relationships with patients, boosting existing efforts within the medical arena to improve communication and transform the doctor-patient relationship. No-Fault as a Means for Transforming the Doctor-Patient Relationship The History of the No Fault Alternative: From Compensation to Learning Since the mid-1970s the medical and legal literature on malpractice have presented the no fault compensation scheme for injuries related to medical errors as an attractive alternative to the existing tort-based system. The interest in no fault has been driven by the emergence of such systems in other countries, with New Zealand and Sweden being the leading models. The developments abroad permeated the U.S. legal system in the late 1980s, in a somewhat different format. The U.S. experiment introduced pockets of no fault systems in two states Virginia and Florida, but the calls for a more comprehensive reform – of the medical malpractice system have yet to be embraced. The interest in the no fault alternative for medical errors in the U.S. was linked to what has been termed the "malpractice crisis." This crisis was manifested in soaring insurance rates for practitioners, a brain drain in certain high-risk specialties, and the proliferation of defensive medicine, all of which have resulted in rising healthcare and legal costs. The crisis was never perceived as one relating to the doctor-patient relationship even though the problem soon gave rise to the battle zone mentality described above, and proponents of no fault never set as a goal the transformation of relations between patients and physicians through legal reform. The no fault option has been hailed by its proponents for its promise of a just, simple and efficient framework in lieu of the complex, cumbersome, unpredictable and costly tort option. The no fault alternative is premised on the establishment of an administrative scheme that offers broad compensation that is not dependant on the question of negligence or personal blame of a healthcare provider. Instead, eligibility is determined based on a definition of the triggering event. In addition, the system provides more limited compensation to a broader class of claimants, thereby controlling some of the indeterminacies associated with the torts system. The thought has been that this structure
physicians to adopt a collaborative mode of communication and build better relationships with patients, boosting existing efforts within the medical arena to improve communication and transform the doctor-patient relationship. No-Fault as a Means for Transforming the Doctor-Patient Relationship The History of the No Fault Alternative: From Compensation to Learning Since the mid-1970s the medical and legal literature on malpractice have presented the no fault compensation scheme for injuries related to medical errors as an attractive alternative to the existing tort-based system. The interest in no fault has been driven by the emergence of such systems in other countries, with New Zealand and Sweden being the leading models. The developments abroad permeated the U.S. legal system in the late 1980s, in a somewhat different format. The U.S. experiment introduced pockets of no fault systems in two states – Virginia and Florida, but the calls for a more comprehensive reform of the medical malpractice system have yet to be embraced. The interest in the no fault alternative for medical errors in the U.S. was linked to what has been termed the "malpractice crisis." This crisis was manifested in soaring insurance rates for practitioners, a brain drain in certain high-risk specialties, and the proliferation of defensive medicine, all of which have resulted in rising healthcare and legal costs. The crisis was never perceived as one relating to the doctor-patient relationship even though the problem soon gave rise to the battle zone mentality described above, and proponents of no fault never set as a goal the transformation of relations between patients and physicians through legal reform. The no fault option has been hailed by its proponents for its promise of a just, simple and efficient framework in lieu of the complex, cumbersome, unpredictable and costly tort option. The no fault alternative is premised on the establishment of an administrative scheme that offers broad compensation that is not dependant on the question of negligence or personal blame of a healthcare provider. Instead, eligibility is determined based on a definition of the triggering event. In addition, the system provides more limited compensation to a broader class of claimants, thereby controlling some of the indeterminacies associated with the torts system. The thought has been that this structure