Medical Error Prevention
The purpose of this monograph and continuing medical education activity is to provide physicians with the most current information regarding the prevention of common performance and diagnostic errors.
Jun 30, 2017
Health Insurance Reform Could Lead to Patient Abandonment: Why the Silence?
Will Washington cancel coverage for millions of patients and unleash a tidal wave of litigation on the U.S. healthcare system? I challenge leaders in healthcare and government to address this question.
Mar 29, 2017
It’s Time to Reset the Medical Malpractice Insurance Conversation
After speaking with more than 800 doctors, practice managers, and group administrators nationwide, it’s clear that it’s time to reset the conversation around medical malpractice insurance. Dr. Anderson explains why he believes companies should serve the medical profession by partnering with those who provide care.
Nov 01, 2000
Chairman’s Letter to JAMA Editor
Letter to the editor of JAMA written by Dr. Richard E. Anderson, chairman of The Doctors Company Board of Governors, praising the critique of the IOM report on medical errors in the JAMA article by Clement J. McDonald, MD, et al., “Deaths Due to Medical Errors Are Exaggerated in IOM Report.”
Jan 01, 2000
Institute of Medicine Report: A Response
Jan 01, 1998
Harvard Study Continues to Distort Healthcare Quality Debate
The Harvard Medical Practice Study is often cited in discussions of healthcare quality and medical malpractice reform. Missing from this discussion is any mention of the critical flaws of the study, which not only render the data of virtually no use for public policy debate, but which also fail to support the authors’ conclusions about the medical-legal system.
Jul 01, 1996
An “Epidemic” of Medical Malpractice? A Commentary on the Harvard Medical Practice Study
Both supporters and opponents of malpractice legal reform can agree that the Harvard study provides us with a wealth of valuable data on questions of medical negligence. More than with most studies, however, the Harvard group’s results are subject to sharply different interpretations and depend heavily on definitions and assumptions with which many will differ.