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

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act of 2005. I rise to oppose this legislation, not because I do not recognize the crisis that is brewing in the area of medical malpractice insurance, but because this legislation tries to remedy this crisis with the wrong prescription.

Many of my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed their concern regarding the access to healthcare that their constituents face. We all recognize this is a major problem in our country. In addition, physicians are constantly under increased pressure throughout the nation to deal with the increased burden that high malpractice premiums pose to their livelihood. In my home state of Illinois, only two neurosurgeons can be found south of Springfield because malpractice insurance rates are so out-of-control. Due to this shortage of neurosurgeons, patients with serious brain injuries are airlifted to St. Louis, many times costing them valuable minutes that can mean the difference between life and death. To remedy this situation as well as the overall problem of liability premium increases, my state imposed caps on non-economic damages to offer a quick fix to keep fleeing doctors. Currently, there are some 21 other states with similar caps.

While caps give the appearance of remedying this crisis in some states, they do nothing to stem the tide of ``frivolous lawsuits.'' Frivolous lawsuits by definition are lawsuits without merit. According to the Physicians Insurers Association of America, the trade group representing physician-owned insurance companies, 70% of malpractice lawsuits are dismissed and only 0.8% of cases actually go through a trial and reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Advocates of caps argue that this 0.8% is what drives up the cost of malpractice insurance. They argue that out-of-control jury awards drive up malpractice premiums. Are we to assume that this 0.8% of cases which go through fair trial, find in favor of the plaintiff, are in fact ``frivolous''? I would argue that the 70% of cases which are dismissed are the ``frivolous cases,'' and this 0.8% represents many egregious cases of malpractice.

Without addressing this problem, this bill does nothing to stop ``frivolous lawsuits,'' it only limits the claims of a person who suffers a terrible and often extreme example of malpractice. Minor injuries or pain and suffering do not receive massive awards. I ask my colleagues, if you or one of your family members suffered a tremendously egregious example of malpractice, would you want to be limited in what you or your family member could be compensated? I am sure your response, much as mine is that you would not.

My colleagues, we can debate over and over again on legislation such as this, but all the debate in the world will not lead to solving this problem when we are headed in a direction such as this. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, a recent study of the 15 largest malpractice insurers in the country found that insurers substantially increased their net premiums by an average of 120% while both their payments and projected future claims payments were flat or decreasing over the past few years. This directly contradicts the insurance industry's claims that premiums are increasing due to increased jury awards. Many of these same insurers even admit that capping malpractice awards will not reverse the trend of rising premiums. The malpractice insurance industry is unjustifiably raising their premiums, gouging doctors, and pushing for legislation that only does one thing: pits doctors against their patients.

If Congress is really serious about fixing this problem it will develop a system which benefits patients most while sidelining the interests of big business. Physicians are in the business of caring for patients, and I appreciate the burden they face with increased malpractice premiums. I am fully aware that this burden affects their ability to practice the profession they love. I only hope that in this struggle to find a remedy to this problem, the few patients who are harmed as a result of malpractice will not be further harmed by a limit on a just compensation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov