↓ Skip to main content

The net effects of medical malpractice tort reform on health insurance losses: the Texas experience

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 489)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
29 news outlets
twitter
8 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The net effects of medical malpractice tort reform on health insurance losses: the Texas experience
Published in
Health Economics Review, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13561-017-0174-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia H. Born, J. Bradley Karl, W. Kip Viscusi

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the influence of medical malpractice tort reform on the level of private health insurance company losses incurred. We employ a natural experiment framework centered on a series of tort reform measures enacted in Texas in 2003 that drastically altered the medical malpractice environment in the state. The results of a difference-in-differences analysis using a variety of comparison states, as well as a difference-in-difference-in-differences analysis, indicate that ameliorating medical malpractice risk has little effect on health insurance losses incurred by private health insurers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 242. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2024.
All research outputs
#152,310
of 25,214,112 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#1
of 489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,325
of 451,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,214,112 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.