Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005

HELP EFFICIENT, ACCESSIBLE, LOW-COST, TIMELY HEALTHCARE (HEALTH) ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - July 28, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, we can all agree on one thing--the skyrocketing cost of malpractice insurance impacts every doctor and, indeed, every American. But contrary to what this majority has repeated time and again, the reason for these soaring costs has nothing to do with frivolous lawsuits.

Indeed, a new report by the Center for Justice and Democracy found that in the last 4 years, the 15 largest malpractice insurers increased premiums by 120 percent--more than doubling premiums. And what about all those frivolous lawsuits supposedly driving those costs? The same report found that claims during that same period rose by just 5.7 percent. In my State of Connecticut, the contrast between claims and rates is even starker, with premiums for our 3 largest malpractice insurers shooting up 213 percent over the last 4 years while claims have increased only 1.6 percent.

So, let's call this situation what it is, Mr. Speaker--insurance companies gouging doctors. To inflate their own profits, insurance companies are putting doctors at risk, destabilizing our health care industry and driving up costs for everyone.

And what is this majority's response? Granting authority to State insurance commissioners to order refunds for doctors when excessive rates are imposed? Requiring insurance companies to get approval before rate increases? Demanding that States set standards for actuaries to calculate rates?

No. Their response: ``blame the patients.'' Limit damages. Drive a wedge between the parties being hurt the most by rising malpractice costs--doctors and patients. At all costs, it seems they are saying, do not hold the insurance industry's feet to the fire on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, this debate ought to be about helping doctors--about doing something meaningful to ensure they can afford to continue practicing medicine. Instead, this bill would insulate insurance companies from having to follow any kind of responsible guidelines regarding how malpractice insurance rates are set. And, as such, this bill will do nothing to actually drive those rates down--an admission the insurance industry itself has acknowledged.

None of this is to say that we do not need to crack down on frivolous lawsuits--indeed, last year I voted to penalize lawyers who file frivolous suits with a tough ``3 strikes and you're out'' rule. And today, Democrats wanted to offer a substitute, which would have taken a comprehensive approach to the malpractice insurance crisis. Our bill would have prevented frivolous lawsuits but also required insurance companies to pass some of their savings on to health care providers, as well as providing assistance to the physicians and communities who need it the most.

We had also hoped to strike a provision of this bill that would have protected manufacturers such as the makers of Vioxx from liability. But again, Republicans prevented that amendment from coming to the floor today for consideration. And little wonder--I would not want to justify why Republicans were protecting the makers of a drug found to be responsible for thousands of deaths either.

Mr. Speaker, in the face of premium increases that are 20 times faster than malpractice claims increases--frivolous or otherwise--this legislation is irresponsible, plain and simple. I urge my colleagues to do right by doctors and families by opposing this bill. Let's come back and pass a bill that will actually address the malpractice insurance crisis.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov