The ethics of capping non‐economic damages to control rising healthcare costs: Panacea or false and misleading practice?

Abstract

Purpose

To explore from an ethical paradigm the current research in support of and opposition to imposing caps on non‐economic damages as a means of addressing the healthcare crisis.

Design/methodology/approach

A review of peer‐ and non‐peer‐reviewed articles primarily covering the period from 2001‐2004, which addresses the rationale articulated in support of and in opposition to imposing caps on non‐economic damages. The articles are sorted into sections and critiqued: rationale for imposing caps, arguments against caps, ethical paradigms impacting caps, and conclusions.

Findings

Provides information from the various sources. Addresses the biases that may have shaped the authors' conclusions and some of the ethical paradigms that may have impacted positions. Also demonstrates that the unbiased research seems to establish a minimal nexus between caps and the proposed impact.

Research limitations/implications

Focus is exclusively on the US healthcare and judicial system. However, findings may still have implications outside the USA in countries that have similar tort laws for addressing private wrongs.

Practical implications

A useful source of information for graduate students in public policy or healthcare management courses, or legislators looking for a quick reference to research regarding this topic area.

Originality/value

This paper fulfills an identified resource for non‐biased assessment of the problem presented and provides a critical review of the reasons articulated in support of this public policy.

Citation

Odom, L., Garcia, A. and Milburn, P. (2005), "The ethics of capping non‐economic damages to control rising healthcare costs: Panacea or false and misleading practice?", Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1108/13660750510611170