Malpractice, Defensive Medicine, and Obstetric Behavior

Medical Care

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 172-191

  Tussing, A Dale ^a,c   Wojtowycz, Martha A ^b  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SUNY UPSTATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cesarean section; Defensive medicine; Malpractice; Obstetrics; Physicians

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; DELIVERY; FEMALE; FETUS MONITORING; HUMAN; MALE; MALPRACTICE; MOTHER; OBSTETRICS; PREGNANCY; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURE; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

CESAREAN SECTION; DEFENSIVE MEDICINE; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; FEMALE; FETAL MONITORING; HUMANS; MALE; MALPRACTICE; MOTHERS; NEW YORK; OBSTETRICS; PREGNANCY; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES;

EID: 0031067202     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199702000-00007     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Institute of Medicine. Medical professional liability and the delivery of obstetrical care. Vols. I and II. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.
2. Rosenblatt RA, Weitkamp G, Lloyd M, et al. Why do physicians stop practicing obstetrics? The impact of malpractice claims. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:245.
3. Reynolds RA, Rizzo JA, Gonzalez ML. The cost of medical professional liability. JAMA 1987;257:2776.
4. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Defensive medicine and medical malpractice. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1994. Publication OTA-H-602.
5. Schifrin BS, Weissman E, Wiley J. Electronic fetal monitoring and obstetrical malpractice. Law Med Health Care 1985;13:100.
6. Marieskind HI. An evaluation of caesarean section in the United States. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1979. Final report submitted to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
7. Sachs BP. Is the rising rate of cesarean sections a result of more defensive medicine? In: Institute of Medicine. Medical professional liability and the delivery of obstetrical care. Vol. II. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.
8. Thacker SB. The impact of technology assessment and medical malpractice on the diffusion of medical technologies: The case of electronic fetal monitoring. In: Institute of Medicine. Medical professional liability and the delivery of obstetrical care. Vol. II. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.
9. Wegman ME. Annual summary of vital statistics - 1993. Pediatrics 1994;94:792.
10. Mastroglannis DS, Knuppel RA. Clinical management of preterm birth. In: Tuchs A-R, Fuchs F, Stubblefield PG, eds. Preterm birth. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 1993.
11. Stafford RS. Cesarean section use and source of payment: An analysis of California hospital discharge abstracts. Am J Public Health 1990;80:313.
12. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Fetal distress and birth asphyxia. ACOG Committee Opinion 1994;137:1.
13. National Institutes of Health. Cesarean childbirth. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, 1980. NIH publication no. 82-2067.
14. Tussing AD, Wojtowycz MA. Fetal distress with high Apgar score. Women's Health: Research on Gender, Behavior, and Policy 1996-97; 2:151.
15. Anderson GM, Lomas J. Determinants of the increasing cesarean birth rate. N Engl J Med 1984;311:887.
16. Taffel SM, Placek PJ, Moien M. One-fifth of 1983 US births by cesarean. Am J Public Health 1985;75:190.
17. Porreco RP. High cesarean section rate: A new perspective. Obstet Gynecol 1985;65:307.
18. Tussing AD, Wojtowycz MA. The cesarean decision in New York State, 1986: Economic and noneconomic aspects. Med Care 1992;30:529.
19. Tussing AD, Wojtowycz MA. The effect of physician characteristics on clinical behavior: Cesarean section in New York State. Soc Science Med 1993;37: 1251.
20. Tussing AD, Wojtowycz MA. Health maintenance organizations, independent practice associations, and cesarean section rates. Health Serv Res 1994;29:75.
21. Gleicher N. Cesarean section rates in the United States. JAMA 1984;252:3273.
22. Goldfarb MG. Who receives cesareans: Patient and hospital characteristics. Washington, DC: National Center for Health Services Research, Hospital Cost and Utilization Project, 1984. Research Note 4.
23. Gould JB, Davey B, Stafford RS. Socioeconomic differences in rates of cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1989;321:233.
24. Berkowitz GS, Fiarman GS, Mojica MA, Bauman J, de Regt RH. Effect of physician characteristics on the cesarean birth rate. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;360:146.
25. de Regt RH, Minkoff HL, Feldman J. Relation of private or clinic care to the cesarean birth rate. N Engl J Med 1986;315:619.
26. Stafford RS. The impact of nonclinical factors on repeat cesarean section. JAMA 1991;265:59.
27. Higgins CS. Cesarean section: Do economic incentives matter? Baltimore County: University of Maryland, 1985. Doctoral dissertation.
28. Goldfarb MG. The impact of economic incentives on physician behavior: The case of breech deliveries. Presented at Eastern Economics Association; March 22, 1985; Pittsburg, PA.
29. Rock SM. Malpractice premiums and primary cesarean section rates in New York and Illinois. Pub Health Rep 1988;103:459.
30. Localio AR, Lawthers AR, Bengston JM, et al. Relationship between malpractice claims and cesarean delivery. JAMA 1993;269:366.
31. Baldwin L-M, Hart G, Lloyd M, Fordyce M, Rosenblatt RA. Defensive medicine and obstetrics. JAMA 1995;274:1606.
32. Maddala GS. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
33. Banta HD, SB Thacker. Costs and benefits of electronic fetal monitoring: A review of the literature. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Services Research, 1979. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare publication no. (PHS) 79-3245.
34. Vintzileos AM, Nochimson DJ, Guzman ER, Knuppel RA, Lake M, Schifrin BS. Intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring versus intermittent auscultation: A meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85:149.