Medical liability related legislation and insurance policies around the world: A narrative literature review

INTRODUCTION: Medical law defines the rules of healthcare by specifying the rights of healthcare consumers while at the same time defining the obligations of healthcare providers. When clinicians fail to provide the standard of care, medical malpractice claims arise, leading to medical liability. While many malpractice claims allege deviation from the lex artis, a substantial proportion do not ultimately establish negligence and are dismissed or settled without a finding of fault. Due to the significant impact of medical negligence on the quality of medical care, as well as on the domestic and global economy, different countries adopt different systems for managing these disputes. Finally, the mandatory or non-mandatory medical malpractice insurance makes doctors carry out their medical work without the fear of medical liability. In fact, in most countries today, doctors are given the opportunity to choose between claims-made and occurrence-based policies of medical malpractice insurance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is a narrative review of scientific and legal works from different countries. For the comparison of medical liability systems and insurance policies a comprehensive review of databases and legal texts was conducted. RESULTS: This study compares medical liability and malpractice insurance systems across countries, examining variations in the handling of malpractice claims and their implications. The system is adversarial in many countries, especially in the United States, to allow for a substantial compensation, while other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Germany, focus on mediation and structured compensation processes. Notably, France, Japan and other countries follow a no-fault system, of reasoning that the system is more efficient in the sense that it reduces the patient's burden of proving negligence and thus expedites the compensation. These findings reveal how each country negotiates the balance between patient rights and healthcare provider protections, and, in turn, how these negotiations affect malpractice insurance costs and legal reforms. DISCUSSION: The analysis contrasts fault-based systems which offer large compensation awards with no-fault systems which focus on quick compensation but may lack accountability. Countries with high litigation rates like the US and Brazil have higher insurance costs, while countries like Canada and Australia have stabilized their systems through reforms. Medical liability insurance options, claims-made versus occurrence-based, raise different economic and legal concerns. Occurrence-based policies are more expensive for younger professionals, but they provide longer-term coverage than claims-made policies. CONCLUSION: Global medical liability frameworks vary considerably, reflecting cultural, economic and legal contexts. However, the comparison reveals that no system is perfect and that there is something to learn from each.