By NextBestFitPhase 5: Stabilize & govern · Step 5.4
Pilot a no-fault patient compensation system (optional)
Years 3–10 · UHA; participating statesDiscuss this step
How other countries handled this same piece of implementation, what happened, and what it means for this plan.
Side by side
| Country | Approach | Result | Lesson for this plan |
|---|---|---|---|
| This plan (U.S.) | Replace malpractice litigation in pilot states with an administrative compensation system for avoidable injuries, funded from the Trust Fund, paired with mandatory safety reporting. | ||
| New Zealand | ACC covers treatment injuries on a no-fault basis; lawsuits for compensation are barred. | Faster compensation; lower individual awards. | No-fault trades large awards for broad, fast compensation. |
| Sweden / Denmark | Patient insurance compensates avoidable injuries without proving negligence. | Higher share of injured patients compensated. | Administrative compensation can work alongside safety reporting. |
New Zealand
- What they did
- ACC covers treatment injuries on a no-fault basis; lawsuits for compensation are barred.
- What happened
- Faster compensation; lower individual awards.
- Lesson for this plan
- No-fault trades large awards for broad, fast compensation.
Sweden / Denmark
- What they did
- Patient insurance compensates avoidable injuries without proving negligence.
- What happened
- Higher share of injured patients compensated.
- Lesson for this plan
- Administrative compensation can work alongside safety reporting.
More precedent
- New Zealand ACC (1974); Sweden's Patient Insurance; Denmark's Patient Compensation Association.