| Tort reform has steadily grown more popular in the United States since it first rose to prominence in the late 1970s. Although it remains controversial, supporters argue that reform may lower healthcare spending by reducing incentives for providers to limit their malpractice risk by delivering medically unnecessary care. In this study, I investigate the relationship between tort reform and state healthcare spending using judicial elections as an instrument for tort reform. I find that caps on damages and comparative fault reform are associated with reduced healthcare spending, while joint-and-several liability reform, contingency fee reform, and patient compensation funds are associated with increased spending. |
