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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
One of the problems we are going to have during this debate is the fact we are here under a closed rule. We will not have the ability to highlight or fix the shortcomings of the bill, so we will go back and forth on sound bites. We have already heard that this has been described as a proconsumer bill, notwithstanding the fact that I am not aware of any recognized consumer group that is supporting it.
Mr. Speaker, we say we have lost doctors because of the malpractice crisis, but we did not say anything about the reimbursement rates for some specialties, who are not getting paid as much, nor is there a suggestion that tort reform has actually produced more doctors. Because we have the same list of ineffectual initiatives that we have had in other tort reform bills, reducing victims' rights without doing anything with malpractice rates, we will try to discuss the provisions of the bill.
First, the rule rejected the alternative offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) that would have actually reduced malpractice costs and helped underserved areas without going overboard in helping and relieving from liability the HMOs and pharmaceutical companies, which means that the doctors will have to pay more of the responsibility for malpractice. We cannot consider that.
But let us come to the specifics. This legislation preempts State law. The National Conference of State Legislators has already considered this bill, and they have rejected it. Their opinion, the National Conference of State Legislators, have suggested this bill will make matters worse.
We have caps on damages, not on damages for wages and things like that, but for elderly, for children, for those who are without lost wages, they will be hurt. Incredibly, the cap on damages has not been shown to do anything about malpractice premiums. Those States with caps are paying the same malpractice premiums as those without caps.
We have heard about this fair share provision that says everybody just pays their fair share or more. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is a group with insurance, and which insurance company will pay. Some States have dealt with this and said if a doctor is at least 60 percent responsible, he can be held fully responsible, but for others, maybe you can have a fair share. This says everybody involved. In other words, you have to go after each and every physician, with a separate case against each and every one for every 1 or 2 percent responsibility they have. We have had the problem of having to sue so many doctors. Well, this requires you to sue each and every doctor.
We have heard about the collateral source rule; that if you have insurance, and listen up small businesses, if you are providing health care for your employees, and you have an employee who gets into a malpractice-induced coma, and somebody has to pay it, and your employee has gotten a recovery from the malpractice insurance, if the small business is paying the responsibility, the physician, the guilty party, will get credit for all of your health insurance, and you are going to have to continue to pay under that health insurance.
We limit attorneys' fees in this legislation, which will do nothing to reduce malpractice premiums. We have different statutes of limitations, which will confuse people, and lawyers will miss the filing deadlines because of all this confusion.
We need insurance reform which will reduce premiums, not just attack victims. We need worthwhile legislation that will reduce the premiums. This will not do it. We need to defeat the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov