FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 13, 2003

Contact: Josh Freed
(202) 225-4431
 
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO) released the following prepared remarks in opposition to final passage of HR 5, the so-called Medical Malpractice Reform Act:

“I think we all agree that there is a crisis in medical malpractice insurance rates. Unfortunately, instead of offering a solution to this crisis by addressing insurance rates or offering solutions for the doctors who are burdened by high premiums, this bill targets the weakest people involved in this debate– patients already suffering from medical errors.

HR 5 relies on the misconception that savings from malpractice litigation reforms will relieve high insurance premiums. However, litigation is not the cause of high malpractice insurance rates. There has been no increase in the rate of malpractice claims filed in recent years and the average payout has remained steady over the past decade. In fact, the one state that proponents of malpractice litigation reform continually cite as a success is California. What they don’t say is that California’s malpractice insurance rates only stabilized after the state reformed its insurance system.

Despite this evidence, proponents of HR 5 continue to represent this bill as a relief for physicians, rather than what it really is—a bill that will add additional injury to patients who have suffered from medical malpractice.

HR 5 would cap non-economic damages at an arbitrary amount of $250,000 for people who have been injured by malpractice. Non-economic damages compensate people for injuries that are very real, like permanent disfigurement, loss of sight or a limb, loss of fertility, and wrongful death. The cap on non-economic damages is unfair and should not become law.

This bill tells people like Heather Lewinski, a 17 year old girl who suffered permanent facial disfigurement at the hands of a plastic surgeon who lied to her and her family, that Congress should decide the compensation for the severe pain, trauma, and suffering that she went through. The bill tells people like Linda McDougal, whose breasts were amputated after she had been misdiagnosed with cancer, that politicians should determine the worth of the loss of her breasts and dignity. And it tells the family of Jesica Santillan, the little girl who died because the hospital failed to ensure that the heart and lungs she was about to receive would be compatible with her blood type, that we should decide how much their little girl’s life was worth.

Some advocates of HR 5 say that the bill only caps non-economic damages, not economic damages and that a person can receive full economic compensation for their injuries. Yet, this bill tells the millions of Americans who do not work—retirees, stay-at-home moms, children, and seniors – that their lives are worth an arbitary amount because they do not earn a salary. Heather Lewinski, who underwent surgery when she was only 8 years old, did not have any economic damages because she was too young to work. Linda McDougal did not have economic damages because her medical bills were already paid for and her loss would not directly affect her future earning potential. Yet, she suffered emotional trauma and a loss of dignity. Is her loss worth an arbitrary amount that was determined by a group of politicians? I certainly don’t think so.

By adopting strict monetary caps on damages, Congress is creating a solution for a problem that does not exist. Medical malpractice claims are not increasing and juries are not making outrageous awards. According to the National Center for State Courts, there was no increase in the volume of medical malpractice claims between 1997 and 2001. Additionally, of the 16,676 medical malpractice cases with awards in 2001, only 5% were for $1 million or more. This represents an extraordinarily small number of cases. We should not restrict the rights of patients to receive fair and adequate compensation for their losses simply because of a handful of large awards.

If we want to fix the real crisis plaguing our nation’s doctors, we need to look at the insurance industry. A study using the insurance industry’s own data and conducted by Americans for Insurance Reform, found that while the total amount of awards paid out over the past decade by malpractice insurers directly tracks the rate of medical inflation, the premiums that insurance companies charge doctors increase or decrease depending on the economy. In my state of Colorado, which has caps on non-economic damages, insurance company payouts dropped from $39 million in 1997 to $36 million in 2001. Yet, premiums over the same period rose from $87 million to $119 million.

Instead of placing unfair burdens on patients, we should be taking a comprehensive approach to this crisis. We should be looking at the insurance cycle, how insurers manage investments and reserves, and financial pressures that people and institutions paying for health care place on providers and how that affects the way care is delivered.

Instead, we are considering a bill that is akin to curing a headache by amputating an arm. Arbitrarily limiting patients’ rights is not fair and it will not solve the problem.

Stand up for the rights of patients and oppose this bill.”
 
###