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. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the Republican Medical Malpractice legislation. This flawed bill provides sweeping liability protections to pharmaceutical and insurance companies, provides inadequate protections for doctors, and will do nothing to lower health care costs.
Doctors are rightly frustrated over the significant increases in medical liability insurance premiums and I am truly concerned that additional costs make it more difficult for physicians to stay in practice. However, I do not believe that this legislation addresses the real problem, which lies with the insurance companies.
Republicans have for years claimed that the rising costs of malpractice insurance are due to a dramatic increase in malpractice lawsuits. However, a recent study of the 15 largest insurance companies shows that over the past 5 years, premiums have doubled while claims payments have been reduced or remained static. This study proves that insurance companies are simply increasing their profits on the backs of our physicians.
Another totally outrageous provision of this bill is the sweeping liability protection for pharmaceutical companies. This bill states that if a product has gone through the Food and Drug Administration approval process, no punitive damages can be awarded against the manufacture of the device or drug later. If this were to become law, the manufacturers of Vioxx would be protected from lawsuits from the families of those harmed or killed by this faulty medication. It is unacceptable to put into law that pharmaceutical and insurance companies are without accountability when their products or decisions knowingly cause harm.
This Republican bill will hurt patients who are harmed by medical malpractice by arbitrarily capping damages and denying justice to injured patients and their families. This is not only unfair, it is unnecessary. New information shows that there is no link between the existence of malpractice caps and insurance premiums.
Finally, because medical malpractice accounts for less than one percent of national health care costs, this legislation will do nothing to reduce health care premiums. Families across America are struggling to afford quality health care and the numbers of uninsured are on the rise. We need to address the real issues involved in the dramatic increase in health care costs, such as the cost of prescription drugs, provider shortages, uninsurance, and the cost of new technologies.
This Congress must become serious about increasing access to quality health care. We need to put families, not pharmaceutical companies, first. I support the Democratic substitute which would have weeded out frivolous lawsuits but allowed justice for injured patients. Democrats were ready to take steps to really reduce insurance premiums by requiring insurance companies to give half of their savings to reductions in medical malpractice rates for doctors. Finally, this substitute would create a commission to evaluate the real causes of increases in premiums as well as insurance reform proposals. We all recognize that this is an important issue. This substitute will give us an opportunity to work together, with accurate information, to make real progress for patients and providers.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov