Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Malpractice Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Experts urge 'communication‑and‑resolution' programs as alternative to win‑lose litigation
Summary
A University of Michigan alumnus and UNM claims leaders described Michigan's communication‑and‑resolution (CRP) approach: early disclosure, sustained patient engagement, and needs‑based compensation. Presenters said CRPs typically do not bar litigation but reduce adversarial suits and drive safety improvements.
Richard Boothman, adjunct assistant professor (University of Michigan), described his team's two‑decade effort to replace "deny‑and‑defend" litigation posture with a clinically grounded communication‑and‑resolution program. Using anonymized case histories, Boothman said Michigan shifted to immediate bedside engagement, early promises of support where appropriate, cross‑disciplinary clinical review and compensation based on a patient's long‑term needs rather than anticipating jury awards.
"Isn't the most important patient after an adverse event not the patient who's been harmed, but the one we haven't harmed yet?" Boothman asked, summarizing the safety rationale for CRP. He said the Michigan program recruited trusted plaintiff attorneys to assist with protection and compensation in complex cases, stabilized families with interim support and used multidisciplinary review committees to identify system fixes and provider remediation where needed.
Dr. Brooke Baker, executive physician for claims management at the University of New Mexico, described CRP elements from a clinician perspective and flagged New Mexico‑specific legal realities. She said CRP and "candor" processes emphasize apology, transparent investigation, iterative quality improvement, and offers of reparations, while preserving a patient’s right to sue. Baker noted New Mexico’s uncapped punitive damages and a relatively low evidentiary bar for exemplary damages as constraints that raise clinician concern and complicate conversion to widespread CRP adoption.
Both presenters said CRPs can lower the frequency of suits by addressing patient needs early and restoring trust, while also producing safety improvements when organizations share quality findings internally. They advised carefully designed statutory protections (for example, protections for quality‑improvement materials and tailored apology laws) and cross‑agency coordination to protect disclosure while maintaining oversight across licensing and disciplinary processes.
What’s next: Boothman and Baker offered follow‑up consultations and written materials for legislators considering pilot programs or statutory protections to support candor/CRP implementation.
