Medical errors: Mandatory reporting, voluntary reporting, or both?

Sverre Grepperud

No 2004:11, HERO Online Working Paper Series from University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme

Abstract: This work evaluates policy recommendations on medical error reporting systems presented in, To err is human, a report published by the Institute of Medicine. Here mandatory reporting should be applied for adverse events, while voluntary reporting is recommended for near misses. This analysis shows that an error reporting scheme of this type is not an optimal one since both near misses and adverse events may remain unreported. This work makes evident that penalising health care decision makers for not reporting errors, independent of error category, is crucial for reaching the first-best solution.

Keywords: Microeconomic theory; agency; iatrogenic injury (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: D82 I18 K42 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 19 pages
Date: 2009-06-14
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-hea
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.hero.uio.no/publicat/2004/HERO2004_11.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Medical Errors: Mandatory Reporting, Voluntary Reporting, or Both? (2005)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hhs:oslohe:2004_011

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in HERO Online Working Paper Series from University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme HERO / Department of Health Management and Health Economics P.O. Box 1089 Blindern, N-0317 Oslo, Norway. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kristi Brinkmann Lenander ().