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)
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, the so-called HEALTH Care Act of 2005. Quite simply, the problems that we should be addressing today are burdensome malpractice insurance rates, patient safety, and access to health care. This bill addresses none of these. In another attempt to cede power from States to the Federal Government, this bill would impose nationwide limits on the compensation injured persons can receive in medical malpractice cases.
We have all heard the stories of doctors leaving their practices because they cannot afford their malpractice insurance rates. For the 6-year period from 1998 through 2003, medical malpractice insurance premiums in my State of Connecticut increased, depending on the insurance company, between 37 percent and 241 percent for internal medicare, 35 percent and 185 percent for general surgery, and 45 percent and 128 percent for obstetrics/gynecology. During that same period of time, the consumer price index only rose 13 percent and the medical consumer price index rose 24 percent. I certainly cannot imagine running a business where one of my expenses was that out of line with the rest of my income and expenses. How can we expect doctors to do that when they provide such an important service to us all? The end result is the loss of good doctors practicing and diminished access to health care. The bill we are debating today does not address the underlying problem and has many flaws.
First, it would remove authority on the issue of tort reform from States, where it has traditionally resided, and preempt various areas of State law, including important consumer protections. Each State has its own issues with regard to medical malpractice and tort law and a one-size-fits-all solution imposed by the Federal Government is not the answer.
Second, it would restrict the ability of injured patients to be compensated for their injuries. An inflexible $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages would punish victims of malpractice and cause significant inequalities in compensation for women, children, seniors, and lower-income workers. A woman who loses a pregnancy or her fertility is not judged to have high economic value, but juries can recognize the human value of her losses. A child with no job or income will obviously have a limited economic value, but juries can recognize the human value of his future. Even with the same injuries, a corporate CEO would receive a much larger economic damage award than a minimum-wage worker or a mother who stays at home to raise her kids, but a jury can recognize the human value of their pain and suffering.
My final objection to this legislation is the manner in which it was brought to the floor. It was never debated in committee and was reported to the floor with a closed rule. In fact, the Rules Committee has rejected 67 amendments to this legislation over the past 3 years. This is the third time the House has voted on this legislation in the past 3 years and the third time it has been the wrong answer for doctors and patients. This is just another example of the majority bringing the same legislation to the floor year after year knowing that it will go nowhere because it is the wrong answer for Americans. Legislation offered by the ranking members of the Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Dingell, have been ignored as well as legislation offered by the gentlewoman from South Dakota, Ms. HERSETH. Americans deserve to have all of these bills debated side by each.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by urging my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 5 and working on real solutions for reasonable malpractice rates, improved patient safety, and accessible health care.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov