Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007
Floor Speech
FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - December 12, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the senior Senator from New Hampshire for bringing this important amendment to the Senate floor.
We just heard from the distinguished assistant majority leader, who is one of the best lawyers we have in the Senate. But I want to offer a different perspective; that is, it does not do pregnant women a lot of good to be able to sue for unlimited damages if they are injured in a medical liability case if they cannot find a doctor to take their case or to deliver their baby.
Really, what this amendment goes to is, how do we increase access to health care and how do we deal in an area where I know there have been complaints that it only addresses pregnant women and their ability to find doctors? The fact is, if we could get agreement on the other side of the aisle, I think this should be extended to cover all doctors and hospitals and all types of cases.
But, as the Senators know, there are issues of germaneness that mean there is only a limited ability to deal with a part of the universe of the problem, and that is why Senator Gregg has offered this legislation--which is called Healthy Mothers Access to Rural Care--on this particular bill.
This legislation, as Senator Durbin noted, is modeled after recent reform efforts that have taken place in my State, my home State of Texas. I would like to talk a little bit about the dramatic improvements in access to care that this commonsense legislation has provided.
This is the subject of an interesting story in the New York Times, dated October 5, 2007. The title of the story--apropos of my comments a moment ago--is ``More Doctors in Texas After Malpractice Caps.''
I would say to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, this is not about denying people access to the courts and recovery. There is unlimited ability to sue for and recover economic losses as a result of a medical liability incident. But it does place reasonable caps on noneconomic losses, specifically pain and suffering.
The good news is, we do not have to guess as to whether this approach works. We know because it has worked in that laboratory of democracy known as the great State of Texas.
As I mentioned, this article highlights some of the successes of this legislation passed a few short years ago in Texas. For example, it says:
In Texas, it can be a long wait for a doctor: up to six months.
[But] that is not for an appointment. That is the time it can take the Texas Medical Board to process applications to practice.
In other words, there have been so many doctors moving to Texas who want to get a Texas medical license because of these reforms that the number of doctors has increased dramatically, and, thus, access to care has increased dramatically throughout the State.
The article goes on to say:
Four years after Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, doctors are responding as supporters predicted, arriving from all parts of the country to swell the ranks of specialists at Texas hospitals and bring professional health care to some long-underserved rural areas.
This is particularly important, as the article says, in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology and neurosurgery and other areas where it is hard to find doctors to come to practice because of skyrocketing medical malpractice rates.
Well, this reform, in Texas, 4 years ago, and what this amendment proposes are specifically designed to deal with those skyrocketing malpractice rates by providing some reasonable limits on recovery for noneconomic damages.
It is fallacious to say it denies people access to the courthouse or recovery. It doesn't do that at all. This article goes on to say:
The influx, raising the State's abysmally low ranking in physicians per capita, has flooded the medical board's offices in Austin with applications for licenses, close to 2,000 at last count.
It was hard to believe at first; we thought it was a spike,
said Dr. Donald W. Patrick, executive director of the medical board and a neurosurgeon and lawyer. But Dr. Patrick said the trend--licenses up 18 percent since 2003--has held, with an even sharper jump of 30 percent in the last fiscal year, compared with the year before.
The article continues to talk about the experience of a pediatric neurosurgeon--a high-risk specialty:
Dr. Timothy George, 47, a pediatric neurosurgeon, credits the measure in part with attracting him and his long sought-after specialty last year to Austin from North Carolina. ``Texas,'' he said, ``made it easier to practice and easier to take care of complex patients.''
Why would we want to make sure there are more pediatric neurosurgeons or specialists with that kind of ability and training and skills, to make that available to more children who need that skill? That is what this amendment would provide.
The article goes on to say:
The increases in doctors--double the rate of the population increase--has raised the state's ranking in physicians per capita to 42nd--
Up from 48th in 2001--
according to the American Medical Association. It is most likely considerably higher now, according to the medical association, which takes two years to compile the standings.
The Texas Medical Board reports licensing--
More than 10,000 new physicians since 2003, up from roughly 8,000--
in the prior 4 years. It issued a record 980 medical licenses at its last meeting in August, raising the number of doctors in Texas to 44--
Almost 45,000--
with a backlog of nearly 2,500 applications.
It is another example of people voting with their feet when we allow conditions to exist that allow doctors to practice their profession in a reasonable environment rather than appear as a victim of the litigation lottery. They are going to come, and more doctors--more high-risk specialties mean more patients are going to get access to the kind of health care they need.
We know the opponents of some of this have basically said: Well, people are going to be hurt if you limit noneconomic caps. The fact is the people who are going to be hurt are the patients who are not going to be able to get the doctors. Of course, we can't forget our friends, the trial lawyers, who usually take 40 to 50 percent of every award in a medical malpractice case. I submit that is part of the resistance we have here, because trial lawyers who specialize in these kinds of cases don't want to get hit in the pocketbook. They don't care as much about access to health care as they do their own pocketbook.
In some medical specialties--
This article goes on to say--
the gains have been especially striking.
For example, an increase of 186 obstetricians, 153 orthopedic surgeons, and 26 neurosurgeons.
This is the reason why physicians and health care providers have found it a better place to practice their profession and why access to care has increased as a result.
This article goes on to say there was an average 21.3 percent drop in medical malpractice insurance premiums, not counting rebates for renewal.
Justice requires that we embrace a national reform, particularly in light of the fact that the American taxpayer, the Federal taxpayer, pays roughly 50 percent of every health care dollar in America today. This is no longer an isolated issue that can be handled or should be handled State by State. We ought to look at the reality, and that is that we need a Federal and national solution too. We are doing fine in Texas because we passed this reform 4 years ago. But shouldn't we make sure that more Americans--particularly more pregnant women--have greater access to health care as a result of this commonsense reform?
As a matter of principle, those who have been wrongly injured deserve their day in court. No one is suggesting we ought to close or bar the courthouse door. If a doctor is at fault, he or she should be held fully accountable. But we should also at the same time take care not to destroy our health care system in order to protect unlimited damages and the lawyers who bring those lawsuits.
The Texas approach has proven successful. This bill would simply give the same boost to all Americans, particularly those most in need--particularly rural patients and more particularly pregnant women who need access to an obstetrician and gynecologist to take care of their baby. It would be a shame if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to block, as they have done time and time again, commonsense reform legislation that is guaranteed and proven to give greater access to health care and doctors and to make sure all Americans have access to the best health care possible.
I urge all of our colleagues to stand up for better access to rural health care, particularly in obstetrics and gynecology, by passing this important amendment.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source