IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v18y1998i1p19-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Michael L. DeKay
  • David A. Asch

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)

Suggested Citation

  • Michael L. DeKay & David A. Asch, 1998. "Is the Defensive Use of Diagnostic Tests Good for Patients, or Bad?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(1), pages 19-28, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:18:y:1998:i:1:p:19-28
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9801800105
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9801800105?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian E. Forst, 1974. "Decision Analysis and Medical Malpractice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Harold Bursztajn & Robert M. Hamm & Thomas G. Gutheil & Archie Brodsky, 1984. "The Decision-Analytic Approach to Medical Malpractice Law," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 4(4), pages 401-414, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Osti & Johannes Steyrer, 2017. "A perspective on the health care expenditures for defensive medicine," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(4), pages 399-404, May.
    2. Tritter, Jonathan Q. & Lutfey, Karen & McKinlay, John, 2014. "What are tests for? The implications of stuttering steps along the US patient pathway," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 37-43.
    3. Iztok Hozo & Benjamin Djulbegovic, 2009. "Will Insistence on Practicing Medicine According to Expected Utility Theory Lead to an Increase in Diagnostic Testing? Reply to DeKay's Commentary: Physicians' Anticipated Regret and Diagnostic Testin," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 320-324, May.
    4. Michael L. DeKay, 2009. "Physicians' Anticipated Regret and Diagnostic Testing: Comment on Hozo and Djulbegovic, 2008," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 317-319, May.
    5. Tinglong Dai & Shubhranshu Singh, 2020. "Conspicuous by Its Absence: Diagnostic Expert Testing Under Uncertainty," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 540-563, May.
    6. Ogden, Benjamin G. & Hylton, Keith N., 2020. "Incentives to take care under contributory and comparative fault: The role of strategic complementarity," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dennis J. Mazur, 1986. "Court Viewpoints and Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 6(4), pages 224-230, December.
    2. David A. Asch & James P. Patton & John C. Hershey, 1990. "Knowing for the Sake of Knowing," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(1), pages 47-57, February.
    3. John C. Hershey & Jonathan Baron, 1987. "Clinical Reasoning and Cognitive Processes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 7(4), pages 203-211, December.
    4. Robert M. Hamm & Jack Allen Clark & Harold Bursztajn, 1984. "Psychiatrists' Thorny Judgments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 4(4), pages 425-447, December.
    5. Raisa B. Deber & Vivek Goel, 1990. "Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(3), pages 181-194, August.
    6. Harold Bursztajn & Robert M. Hamm & Thomas G. Gutheil & Archie Brodsky, 1984. "The Decision-Analytic Approach to Medical Malpractice Law," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 4(4), pages 401-414, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:18:y:1998:i:1:p:19-28. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.