Abstract
Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Norway each operate successful no fault compensation schemes for injuries caused by both medical treatment and use of medicinal products. The existence of these schemes avoids the necessity for claims to be resolved through the courts, as medical negligence or product liability claims. The schemes are administrative/inquisitorial and cheap to operate, both in terms of administration costs and cost of sums paid. The low level of the latter costs is due to both low historic levels of damages, as would be awarded by courts, and particularly the fact that compensation is paid to injured persons from various sources, with no recourse being taken between the different sources. The schemes offer significant attractions, but it is difficult to see how they could be applied in other States given the background economic pre-conditions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baldwin, P. (1990). The politics of social solidarity: The foundation of European welfare states 1875–1975. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Calderini, M., Cantamessa, M., & Palamigiano, A. (2004). Analysis of the economic impact of the development risk clause as provided by Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products. Rome, Italy: Fondazione Roselli.
Danzon, P. M. (1994). The Swedish patient compensation system: Lessons for the United States. The Journal of Legal Medicine, 15, 199–247.
Dufwa, B. W. (1980). Product liability legislation. General problems and techniques. The Swedish experience. In Tidskrift, utgiven av Juridiska Föreningen I (Finland), pp. 1–11.
Donaldson, L. (2003). Making amends: A consultation paper setting out proposals for reforming the approach to clinical negligence in the NHS: A report by the Chief Medical Officer (UK Department of Health). London: Department of Health.
Dute, J., Faure, M. G., & Koziol, H. (Eds.) (2004). Tort and insurance law, Vol. 8: No-fault compensation in the health care sector. New York: Springer.
Lodrup, P. (2002). Norwegian report. AIDA XIth World Congress, New York, 22–25 October 2002, (pp. 117–150). Dansk Selskab for Forsikringsret [Danish Section of the International Association of Insurance Law].
McIntosh, D., & Holmes, M. (2003). Personal injury awards in EU and EFTA countries (2nd ed.). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Oldertz, C. (1986). Security insurance, patient insurance and pharmaceutical insurance in Sweden. American Journal of Comparative Law, 34, 635–656.
Oliphant, K. (2004). Beyond Woodhouse: Devising new principles for determining ACC boundary issues. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 35(4), Special Issue on Accident Compensation, 915–936.
Skegg, P. D. G. (2003). Compensation in the New Zealand health care sector. In J. Dute, M. G. Faure, & H. Koziol (Eds.) (2004), Tort and insurance law, Vol. 8: No-fault compensation in the health care sector (pp. 298–332). New York: Springer.
Von Eyben, B. (Ed.) (2002). Alternative compensation mechanisms for damages. The Nordic countries: Common report and national reports. AIDA XIth World Congress, New York, 22–25 October 2002 (pp. 117–150). Dansk Selskab for Forsikringsret [Danish Section of the International Association of Insurance Law].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hodges, C. Nordic compensation schemes for drug injuries. J Consum Policy 29, 143–175 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-006-9003-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-006-9003-4