"Medical Adversity Insurance": Has Its Time Come?
Duke law journal
In 1972, prior to the onset of the recent crisis in medical malpractice insurance and the resulting widespread reappraisal of patients' legal rights and malpractice remedies, this writer participated in the formulation of a blueprint for "medical adversity insurance" (MAI), which was published as "a no-fault approach to medical malpractice and quality assurance."'-The MAI proposal was not a finished product, however, and it was not ready for serious legislative or professional consideration
... l consideration when the current problems arose and made the field suddenly fertile for substantive and procedural change. Indeed, it was presented less as a proposal for immediate adoption than as a theoretically sound model for further study and as a conceptual benchmark for evaluating both the fault system and existing quality-assurance mechanisms. Now, however, MAI has been given enough additional substance to qualify it for policy makers' attention. The original MAI proposal was highly specific about the schemes mechanics but sketchy about the coverage of the no-fault insurance which it contemplated that providers would purchase for the benefit of their patients. The emphasis on mechanical details in the original presentation no doubt obscured the essentials of the MAI idea, namely (1) advance specification of a limited list of automatically compensable events, carefully drawn up by medical experts under some form of public supervision, and (2) design of the insurance scheme