Correspondence: Phil Rutsohn, Marshall Graduate School of Management 100 Angus E. Peyton Drive South Charleston WV 25303, USA. Tel: +1 304 746 2031; Fax: +1 304 746 2063; e-mail: prutsohn@marshall.edu

¹has been a Professor of Health Care Administration for 30 years. He has been a consultant with hospitals, integrated health delivery systems, medical group practices and most recently with state Public Health Departments. For most of his faculty tenure, he has been jointly appointed with Medical Schools and Schools of Business. For the past nine years, he has been a professor at Marshall University Graduate School of Management, West Virginia. He has a BA from New Mexico Highlands University, an MS from Oklahoma State University and a Dr Ph from the University of Texas, School of Public Health.

²is a nationally known business educator who has been part of higher education for over 40 years. His BA degree is from Hiram College in Ohio and his MBA and PhD degrees are from Michigan State University. He has been a full professor at five different universities where he has served as dean and/or associate dean including Marshall University, California State University-Northridge, California, California State University-Chico, Chicago State University and Murray State University. He currently serves as the Richard G. Miller Distinguished Professor of Management and Business Ethics, Director of the Graduate School of Management, and Associate Dean of the Elizabeth McDowell Lewis College of Business at Marshall University.

Abstract

This paper explores the primary issues surrounding the malpractice crisis currently facing the healthcare system and asks the question 'is it truly a crisis or is it an effective marketing campaign waged by interested parties?' The authors discuss the primary issues presented by both the supporters of tort reform and the opposition to tort reform. As is true for many issues in healthcare, final analysis suggests that tort reform is needed or not needed depends on the analysts' role in the system. The authors argue that the evidence suggests malpractice reform will produce desired results if the goal is to reduce the physician's cost of doing business and/or enhance the profit margin of insurance companies. If it is society's goal to reduce overall healthcare costs, the evidence at best is, however, unclear. The authors speculate that providers and others are employing fear marketing in an effort to reduce their cost of doing business.