Is the Defensive Use of Diagnostic Tests Good for Patients,or Bad?

Abstract

Physicians sometimes order diagnostic tests to reduce the risk of malpractice liability. The authors develop an expected-utility model that links a rational physician's concerns about malpractice liability to increases in the use of diagnostic tests and use this model to assess the effects of defensive testing on patients' interests. To do so, they adapt the threshold approach to clinical decision making to incorporate the physician's inter ests, focusing on 1) the effect of the physician's expected liability risks and 2) the effect of any expected liability reduction due to diagnostic testing. Surprisingly, the mere existence of liability risks is often sufficient to widen the range of disease probabilities for which diagnostic testing is the preferred clinical strategy. If testing reduces the physician's expected liability risks, the testing range is widened further. For some dis ease probabilities, testing is preferred by the physician even though it is not in the patient's best interests. When tests are performed in such instances, utility is trans ferred from the patient to the physician and the physician's insurer. Although the de fensive use of diagnostic tests improves clinical outcomes for some patients, it worsens clinical outcomes for others. Moreover, defensive testing worsens the expected out comes of all patients whose clinical strategies are changed. Physicians should realize that defensive testing necessarily reduces the overall quality of patient care. Key words: decision analysis; decision threshold; defensive medicine; diagnostic testing; expected utility; malpractice liability. (Med Decis Making 1998;18:19-28)

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, 1994

Medical Malpractice Washington, DC Committee on Ways and Means, U S House of Representatives, 1990

Pauker SG , Kassirer JP

The threshold approach to clinical decision making

N Engl J Med 1980,302 1109-17

Sox HC Jr, Blatt MA , Higgins MC , Marton KI Medical Decision Making Boston, MA. Butterworths

Childs AW , Hunter ED

Non-medical factors influencing use of diagnostic x-ray by physicians

Med Care 1972,10 323-5.

Danzon PM , Manning WG , Marquis MS

Factors influencing laboratory test use and prices

Health Care Financ Rev. 1984; 523-32.

Hillman BJ , Joseph CA , Mabry MR , Sunshine JH , Kennedy SD , Noether M.

Frequency and cost of diagnostic imaging in office practice a comparison of self-referring and radiologist-referring physicians

N Engl J Med. 1991,324 1371-3.

Eisenberg JM Doctors' Decisions and the Cost of Medical Care Ann Arbor, MI Health Administration Press, 1986.

Bursztajn H. , Hamm RM , Gutheil TG , Brodsky A. The decision-analytic approach to medical malpractice law: formal proposals and informal syntheses . Med Decis Making 1984; 4 401-14

10.

Forst BE

Decision analysis and medical malpractice

Oper Res 1974 1-12

11.

Fischhoff B.

Hindsight ≠ foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty

J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1975,1 288-99.

12.

Hastings SA , Hastie R. Hindsight biased judgments of past events after the outcomes are known. Psychol Bull. 1990,107: 311-27

13.

Arkes HR , Wortman RL , Saville PD , Harkness AR

Hindsight bias among physicians weighing the likelihood of disease

J Appl Psychol 1981,66 252-4

14.

Arkes HR , Faust D. , Guilmette TJ , Hart K.

Eliminating the hindsight bias

J Appl Psychol. 1988,73:305-7

15.

Dawson NV , Arkes HR , Siciliano C. , Blinkhorn R. , Lakshmanan M. , Petrelli M.

Hindsight bias an impediment to accurate probability estimation in clinicopathologic conferences

Med Decis Making 1988,8.259-64.

16.

Detmer DE , Fryback DG , Gassner K. Heuristics and biases in medical decision making. J Med Educ 1978,53:682-3

17.

Arkes HR Principles in judgment/decision making research pertinent to legal proceedings . Behav Sci Law. 1989;7.429-56

18.

Arkes HR , Schipani CA

Medical malpractive v the business judgment rule differences in hindsight bias

Oreg Law Rev. 1994,73 587-638

19.

Wexler DB , Schopp RF How and when to correct for hmdsight bias in mental health malpractice litigation. some preliminary observations. Behav Sci Law. 1989;7:485-504.

20.

Danzon PM Medical Malpractice Theory, Evidence, and Public Policy Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press , 1985.

21.

Crane M. Could a malpractice suit wipe out your assets? Med Econ July 6, 1992,69.146-53

22.

Lawthers AG , Localio AR , Laird NM , Lipsitz S. , Hebert L. , Brennan TA

Physicians' perceptions of the risk of being sued

J Health Polit Policy Law 1992,17 462-82

23.

Tversky A. , Kahneman D.

Availability a heuristic for judging frequency and probability

Cognit Psychol 1973,5.207-32

24.

Tversky A. , Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty heuristics and biases. Science. 1974,185.1124-31

25.

Hershey N. The defensive practice of medicine. myth or reality? Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1972,50.69-98