Senators Link Malpractice
Crisis to Access Problems, Insurers' Financial Mismanagement
February 14, 2003 - The debate over malpractice liability
reform continued at a Feb. 12 joint hearing of the Senate
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and Senate
Judiciary Committee.
Unlike earlier hearings, the Feb. 12 hearing indicated a
growing bipartisan concern that rising malpractice premiums
are restricting patient access to care. The access issue was
addressed in several testimonies, including one offered by
the wife of a man who had to wait hours before a neurosurgeon
was found to treat his life-threatening head injury. According
to her testimony, the neurosurgeons in the area had moved
away because they could no longer afford their malpractice
insurance premiums.
The testimony of an obstetrician/gynecologist from Las Vegas
who recently moved to Maine because of premium increases also
addressed access problems. Despite having 8,000 active patients,
he could not sell his well-respected 12-year practice because
of Nevada's malpractice premium levels.
While there was bipartisan agreement on the impact of rising
malpractice premiums, the Committee members remained divided
over how to address the problem. Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.),
Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) were
among those who held the insurance industry accountable. They
blamed premium increases on poor financial management and
an exemption from anti-trust regulations, and called for increased
oversight and investigations of the industry.
While several senators suggested capping awards and limiting
an attorney's contingency fees as proposed in the HEALTH Act,
others including Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) proposed the creation
of a funding pool that high-risk specialists could draw from
to pay part of their premiums. Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.)
criticized President Bush for claiming that too many frivolous
lawsuits go to court. He explained that attorneys invest a
great deal of time and money in defending their cases and
subsequently would never take on a case that had no merit
and would fail in court.
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and witness Jay Angoff, an attorney
who specializes in malpractice issues, felt that pre-trial
screening procedures ("affidavits of merit") would
prevent frivolous lawsuits from consuming unnecessary resources
and contributing to the rise in malpractice premiums. Several
states, including North Carolina and Texas already require
some type of affidavit of merit.
Information:
Christiane Mitchell, Senior Legislative Affairs Manager
AAMC Government Relations
cmitchell@aamc.org
(202) 828-0526
Get Washington Highlights
in your Inbox!
| 
