Patients First Act of 2003 - Motion to Proceed

PATIENTS FIRST ACT OF 2003—MOTION TO PROCEED

    Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague. I had a couple of questions, having listened to the statement.

    First, my sense is that many physicians in our country—I am seeing this across Oregon and rural Oregon—are having a real problem out there paying their malpractice premiums. We are seeing physicians leave the profession. This has resulted in patients not having the access to care they deserve.

    My understanding is that the distinguished Senator from Illinois agrees with that and that the Senator has already discussed that a bit this afternoon; is that correct?

    Mr. DURBIN. That is correct. I say to my friend and colleague from Oregon, I think it is a disservice to the medical profession of America not to concede there is a medical malpractice insurance crisis affecting some specialties in some States. I do not argue that point. I have seen those doctors face to face. Maybe my colleague from Oregon has, too.

    It is interesting, I might say to my friend from Oregon, as I listened carefully to the explanation on the other side as to how to deal with this crisis, I waited in vain to hear any suggestion that insurance companies should be brought in as part of this conversation. To the other side of the aisle it appears the only thing we need to do is to make sure the victims of medical malpractice have a limitation on what they can recover in court, no matter whether we are dealing with children or elderly people, no matter how serious the injuries. I do not think that is a complete and honest approach to an extremely complicated problem.

    Mr. WYDEN. If my colleague will yield further, my understanding is you have already indicated you are open to working with others in the Senate, colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to try to find a bipartisan solution. I am particularly interested. Senator Hatch and I were able to do this a number of years ago for the community health centers that were being priced out of their malpractice coverage. We were able to come up with a solution that has made it possible for thousands and thousands of poor people across the country to get their care and have these clinics covered without extra cost to the taxpayers, simply by working in a bipartisan way. My sense is to get out beyond the blame game, saying it is this interest group's fault or that interest group's fault, and to try to find some common ground here between Democrats and Republicans so we can really deal with a problem that is affecting many of our physicians and affecting our vulnerable patients. My understanding is my colleague from Illinois is open to that kind of bipartisan approach and may even have some ideas he will offer this week.

    I wanted to come to the floor because I think this is a real problem. I so often go to meetings and one group says it is the insurance companies' fault and the other group says it is the trial lawyers' fault. I have heard the distinguished Senator from Illinois say he wants to get beyond that and find a solution to a real problem. Perhaps he could address that in whatever time is remaining.

    Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator. I did not have a chance to speak to Senator McConnell, but I did speak to Senator Frist, who was here earlier and made that same offer. I said to him, instead of bringing this bill to the floor, take it or leave it, with no committee hearings and no effort to try to work out our differences, wouldn't it be better for us to sit down at some point and try to engage all the elements that are necessary for success if we are going to deal with this true crisis in America?

    He is open. I hope, if opportunity presents itself, we have that chance. I think we need to bring to the table, not only the legal profession but also the medical profession and the insurance companies. If you do not have all three of them at the table, as I will make clear in my statement, you are not going to get to the root cause of the problem.

    The answer from the other side is strictly to limit for malpractice victims the amount they can recover in court. I am going to show in charts I will present that that has not worked. Caps really do not guarantee that malpractice premiums come down, for a variety of very complicated reasons.

    I hope we can do that. I hope on a bipartisan basis we can stop this high-noon standoff and reach a point where we have real conversation and dialog.

    Mr. WYDEN. If my colleague will yield for one last question——

    The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Will the Senator suspend so the Presiding Officer may remind all Senators that yielding is only for purposes of asking a question in order for the Senator from Illinois to retain his recognition on the floor.

    Mr. DURBIN. I yield for the purpose of a question.

    Mr. WYDEN. I ask, is there any reason why we couldn't begin such a bipartisan effort immediately? That is something I would like to do. I cited a specific example with Senator Hatch where we were able to make a real difference by working in a bipartisan way. It is making a difference in community health centers for their liability coverage. Is there any reason why efforts to come up with creative solutions that are bipartisan could not begin right now, rather than going this route that is going to polarize the Senate once again?

    Mr. DURBIN. I would say through the Presiding Officer, there is no reason why it should not start this evening and I hope it will. But it will require people of good will on both sides. It will require some of the special interest groups that have not even been brought into this conversation to be brought in and to accept their share of responsibility.

    I think we can work this out. We must work this out so we do not have the denial of basic medical services that are needed across the State of Oregon and Illinois and New Hampshire and Kentucky and so many other States. But we have to do it in a bipartisan, constructive way.

    Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague.