Educate juries about the anatomy of auto injuries with our popular Auto Injuries PowerPoint
No-Fault a "Cure" for Whiplash?
In the April 20, 2000, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, an article was published that received considerable attention in the popular media. CNN.com reported on this study, and their report was entitled, "Study finds no-fault insurance a prescription for treating whiplash." The report opens:
"Got a case of whiplash? Some researchers say the best cure for reducing the pain from minor traffic accidents might be found in an unlikely place: no-fault insurance."
"Researchers at the University of Alberta in Canada discovered that people hurt in traffic accidents actually recover better when they can't collect money for their pain and suffering."
This sounds like a very impressive study. When the actual article is examined, however, a different picture emerges.
The study examined the medical claims of 7,462 Saskatchewan residents who were injured in a traffic accident between July 1, 1994, and December 31, 1995. On January 1, 1995, Saskatchewan legislators passed into law a no-fault insurance system that eliminated the right to sue for pain and suffering, and that also instituted a number of changes in how whiplash patients were treated. The authors' stated goal was to see how this change in law affected whiplash claims.
The study found that the no-fault did indeed reduce claims for injury: the incidence of whiplash claims dropped by 28% after January 1, 1995, and the time that it took to close claims dropped by 54%.
Let's now examine the problems with this study:
First, the study equates recovery with closure of claim. Apparently, the authors of the study did send questionnaires to the patients after the closure of the claim to assess the patients' symptoms, but they did not publish the results of that questionnaire. It is, therefore, impossible for the study to state that these patients had actually recovered from their injuries.
Second, the change to no-fault insurance included many other factors besides removing the right to sue for pain and suffering. The Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) also changed how whiplash patients received treatment and from whom they could receive treatment. None of these other factors were considered in the study. To state that simply removing the right to sue for pain and suffering is alone responsible for the difference is impossible to assess with this study.
Third, there are some serious concerns raised about the bias of the study. The research was funded by SGI itself, and apparently SGI tried to exert pressure on the researchers to report funding from SGI in a way that would "expose the results and conclusions of the study, when they are published, to questions regarding their objectivity and impartiality and cast serious doubt on their validity." Also, another researcher in the study, Dr. Emma Bartfay, has filed a lawsuit against the lead author of the study, Dr. David Cassidy. The lawsuit states, "...in or about September 1998, and contrary to all normal and appropriate practices and procedures in regards to independent medical research, she was instructed by Cassidy to produce certain statistical results that would support the end conclusion desired. Specifically...Cassidy instructed her to produce results and graphs that would support the conclusion that an injured person's time (date) of settlement is a good proxy for the person's time (date) of recovery." Bartfay claims that she was harassed, verbally abused, and intimidated, and that she eventually resigned her position.
In short, all this study really shows (contrary to all the media reports) is that under SGI's system, fewer people file a claim and the claims are closed more quickly. The study's conclusion, "claimants recover faster if compensation for pain and suffering is not available," cannot be proven by this study.
Please note that this article is copyrighted and may not be reproduced without permission. To include our articles and videos on your website, check out our chiropractic marketing.