Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 878) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of the uniformed services and Foreign Service in determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 139, H. Res. 126 is laid on the table.
March 13, 2003 • 12:05 PM
View full timeline
Introduced in House
March 5, 2003
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 108-25, by Mrs. Myrick.
March 5, 2003
Provides for one hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Waives all points of order against consideration of the bill; and provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report (H.Rept. 108-25) shall be considered as adopted.
March 5, 2003 • 9:46 PM
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 8.
March 5, 2003
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 139, H. Res. 126 is laid on the table.
March 13, 2003 • 12:05 PM
Floor Debate
24 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 126 on the floor
ALH
TMR
JCJ
RK
RC"+19
Floor Debate
24 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 126 on the floor
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from New…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) that the gentleman and I handled this measure last fall when this bill was brought to the floor. It was a bad bill then, and it is a bad bill now. I also want to clear up something about so-called unnecessary lawsuits. There are penalties for lawyers who bring frivolous claims into any courtroom; thus, I theorize that the majority evidently does not understand that particular distinction.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule for H.R. 5. This legislation requires a full and open debate. The closed rule is abhorrent and cowardly. It denies the opportunity for free and fruitful discussion that would uncover all this legislation's deficiencies.
The current Committee on Rules chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), said in 1994 when a Member of the minority, and referring to the Democratic members of the Committee on Rules, ``But we should have a structure which allows Members to participate more than they do now, and that it is again underscoring Lord Acton's very famous line that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The arrogance of power with which they prevent Members, rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans, from being able to offer amendments, that is what really creates the outrage here.''
That was the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and outrage continues in the minority today. If the majority alleges that Democrats were wrong in utilizing the closed rule when we were in the majority, why not be the bigger party and end the practice? Why the political games, or is it simply more fun to be principled when it is convenient?
There is no question that medical liability insurance rates are out of control. Consequently, fine doctors, as well as other health care providers, often do not properly attend to patients. However, the underlying bill will not relieve doctors of high malpractice insurance premiums. I am focused on giving Americans quality health care, as all of my colleagues are, not increasing profits for the health insurance industry; and there are good proposals to correct the situation. H.R. 5 is not one of them.
Instead of protecting patients, H.R. 5 protects HMOs and big insurance companies. The so-called HEALTH Act of 2003 addresses the health of the health care industry and not that of physicians and patients. H.R. 5 is bad legislation; but like perennial flowers, its contents sprout every Congress, replenishing the coffers of its supporters. HMOs and big health insurers should not receive special treatment. They are not above the law. Nor should they be exempt from new legislation simply because they contributed millions of dollars in the last two election cycles.
H.R. 5 applies to medical malpractice, medical products, nursing homes, and health insurance claims because its supporters' true concern is not the suffering of patients or victims. Instead, H.R. 5 advocates want immunization from the consequences of irresponsible civil behavior.
The top priority in reforming America's health care system should be reducing the shameful number of preventable medical errors that kill nearly 100,000 hospital patients a year.
Wrong-doers must remain accountable. When a stay-at-home mom dies or a child dies or a senior citizen suffers irreparable harm, there is no economic loss because it is impossible to prove damages from loss of income. H.R. 5 takes away compensation for parents who lose children, husbands who lose wives, children who lose parents, and patients who lose limbs, eyesight and other very real losses that are not easily measured in terms of money.
Despite a wide consensus, skyrocketing premiums are not due to bad politics. The malpractice insurance market is having a predicament because of the insurance industry. The other side of the aisle claims that the lure of big wins prompts many to file frivolous lawsuits. But, in fact, victims are already at a disadvantage. Two-thirds of patients who file a claim do not get a dime. About 61 percent of cases are dismissed or dropped, and 32 percent are settled; and too many of them are on the courthouse steps when they could have been settled earlier. Only 7 percent of all cases go to trial.
Patients prevail in only one in five of the cases that are tried. These are pretty staggering odds against the victims.
The American people would know these truths if their Representatives could expose the selective use of data and statistics that the majority uses in supporting H.R. 5. One classic example would be the notion that in California, after 1975, premiums went down. Well, they did not go down until California reformed the insurance laws. It did not go down. It went up progressively for 12 years.
But under today's closed rule, the majority is committing the greatest form of political malpractice. When the majority has finished bullying its members into voting the party line today, the American people will not only be barred from seeking compensation when a doctor transplants an incorrect organ but they will realize that with closed rules as the order of business, they cannot even seek compensation in the People's House.
For example, if this bill were current law, no experienced trial lawyer would take the case of the young Mexican girl who lost her life at Duke University. The case would be complex, obviously, and expensive to put on, there would be no economic damages, and the maximum noneconomic award would be $250,000. H.R. 5 treats the health care insurance businesses as the victims, and that is unacceptable.
The consequences of an injury are highly subjective and affect different people in vastly different ways. Put another way, how much is my arm worth? How much is your leg worth? This one-size-fits-all solution contradicts the
promise of individualized justice and objectifies victims and the uniqueness of their suffering. Different States have different experiences with medical malpractice insurance and insurance remains a largely State-regulated industry. The $250,000 cap that must have been taken out of somebody's cap as a reason for going forward takes away juries' abilities in our States to determine the appropriate level of compensation for people who suffer grievous injuries at the hands of their health care providers. The majority does not trust the people to defend its political contributors.
Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal quoted a Republican lawyer from Houston as asking, ``Why are juries okay to take a man's life on the criminal side but are not competent to put a dollar value on an innocent victim's life on the civil side?'' That is shameful. H.R. 5 is a health care immunity act that does not benefit physicians and victimizes patients.
When Democrats were in the majority, Republicans complained time after time that closed rules were unfair. On all of the radio infrastructure, we heard closed rules were unfair, unpatriotic and contrary to the goals of the framers. However, in more than 8 years that Republicans have been in the majority, closed rules are preferred and ruling with an iron fist is the practice. I am in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
In response to my good friend and colleague regarding the fairness and openness and the 1 hour of debate, 31 amendments were offered last night in the Committee on Rules and my good friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and I were there. Not one, not one, was permitted. What is fair about that?
In response to Dr. Weldon's defensive medicine argument, some people claim that billions of dollars are being wasted on so-called defensive medicine. Our own Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the idea of defensive medicine is uncertain and hypothetical. You can find that on page 74 of House Report 108-32.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, there is a recent study reported in USA Today of medical malpractice insurance that concluded that,
on average, doctors still spend less on malpractice insurance, 3.2 percent of their revenue, than on rent. I offer that for the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who is an expert in this area, with a Master's of Public Health.
Mr. Speaker, would the Chair announce the remaining time on both sides, please?
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House, who I think can speak to both substance and process.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the distinguished chairman, my friend, that we did have 31 amendments last night; none of them have been allowed to come to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my very good friend.
(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who has studied this problem long-standing as an attorney.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who is married to a physician, does not find that H.R. 5 is going to remedy her husband's problem.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who is a registered nurse and has seen what we are talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), my friend, who is an attorney married to a physician, who has studied this problem actively and carefully over a period of time, coming from a State with dramatic problems.
(Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and then I will be prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will allow the House to consider the Conyers-Dingell substitute to the medical malpractice bill. My amendment will give Members an opportunity to vote on this substitute which, unlike the majority, takes a comprehensive approach to rising medical malpractice insurance premiums. It takes steps to weed out frivolous lawsuits. It requires insurance companies to pass their savings on to health care providers, and it provides targeted assistance to the physicians and communities who need it most.
Let me make it clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of this bill. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to consider and get a vote on the Conyers-Dingell substitute. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will shut out any opportunity for a vote on the substitute. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and a description be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question, on which I urge a ``no'' vote on the base rule.
Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 139 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 139 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 139 is a closed rule providing 2 hours of debate for consideration of H.R. 5, Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act, more commonly known as the HEALTH Act. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, my home State of New York has been designated by the American Medical Association as one of the 18 crisis States because of the staggering number of physicians that are unable to obtain or afford liability insurance. It is not just physicians that are feeling the crunch; hospitals and other providers have also reached their breaking point.
Take, for example, family-run skilled nursing facilities in my district that have not once had a claim brought against them, yet they have seen their liability insurance rates climb over 200 percent during the past 2 years alone. That is 200 percent in the last 2 years alone.
According to a study conducted by the American Hospital Association and the American Society of Risk Management, one-third of the hospitals experienced an increase of 100 percent or more in liability insurance premiums in 2002. Meanwhile, patients are the ones losing choices, access, and care.
Mr. Speaker, last September I stood on this floor to speak in favor of the HEALTH Act. Since that time, my home community of Erie County, New York, has lost 40 actively practicing physicians. Only 3 months into the current year, they are anticipating a loss of another 20 physicians. If we do not solve the problems facing physicians in this community and so many others across America, who will provide the health care services so vital to all of our constituents?
The fact is that physicians are limiting their patients, moving to States with lower insurance rates, or closing their practices altogether. The fact is that astronomical costs and unpredictability in the legal system are causing this alarming trend.
The effect? Doctors practice defensive medicine to avoid litigation and think twice about openly discussing and reporting possible errors. A study released by the Department of Health and Human Services last week emphasizes that bolstering predictability in the legal system will dramatically reduce the incentives for unnecessary lawsuits. Those who need care will get it faster and more reliably, and those who may need proper redress will get it faster and more reliably.
The HEALTH Act will provide that predictability, while at the same time halting the exodus of providers from the health care industry, stabilizing premiums, limiting astonishing attorney fees, and above all, improving patient care.
Just as important is what HEALTH Act will not do. It will not preempt any existing State laws that limit damages at a specific amount, and it will not establish any new causes of action.
Also, it will not prevent juries from awarding unlimited economic damages. This means that quantifiable lost wages, medical costs, pain- reducing medications, therapy and lifetime rehabilitation can all be recuperated as tangible economic damages. Patients that have been wrongly injured will not be denied access to substantial amounts in economic damages.
The HEALTH Act is modeled after legislation adopted by a Democratic legislature and a Democratic Governor in the State of California nearly 30 years ago. While insurance premiums increased over 500 percent nationwide, California's have risen only a third of that much, by 167 percent.
California's insurance market has stabilized, increasing patient access to care and saving more than $1 billion per year in liability premiums. Equally important, California doctors are not leaving the State.
By following California's lead to place modest limits on unreasonable economic damage awards, an estimated $60 billion to $108 billion could be saved in health care costs each year. The Congressional Budget Office calculated that medical liability insurance premiums would be lowered an average 25 to 30 percent from what they are now under current law. And CBO also predicts that reducing the occurrence of defensive medicine would save anywhere from $25 billion to $44 billion per year of taxpayers' money.
I want to thank the leadership of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary for working so expeditiously to bring this important measure back to the floor and focusing our attention on health care, particularly for coupling the HEALTH Act this week with patient safety legislation. Physicians need an environment where they can both share and learn, while at the same time practicing medicine without the fear of burgeoning liability rates and unnecessary lawsuits.
Mr. Speaker, spiraling medical liability insurance rates have hemorrhaged in recent years. Today we have an opportunity to stop the bleeding and maximize healthy patient outcomes. I urge Congress to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the debate has begun. We are going to have an hour on this rule. I believe after that we are going to have 2 hours of general debate. It really cuts right down through the center. As I talked about excessive court trial damage driving up the cost of patient health care, I listened to the other side say it is the insurance companies and the doctors that are the cause of so much of this. It will be a good debate. It will be a full hour here on this rule and it will be 2 hours of general debate, and then we are going to have an up or down on the HEALTH Act and we are going to find out whether it is passed and sent to the other body.
But I must say that over 60 percent of the doctors in the United States are insured by insurance companies that are owned and operated by other doctors and which operate primarily for their benefit. The idea that those companies would price-gouge the very physicians who own them, I think, is absurd.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have only served under the distinguished chairmanship of Chairman Dreier, but I am always pleased that in each rule that we make there is always a recommit. Looking back at history, one of the people that I think was a distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, Joe Moakley, I am not sure he always had a recommit in the legislation. I am not sure that former Speaker Tip O'Neill when he was a member of the Committee on Rules always voted that there would be a recommit. But I do believe that there has been a recommit in here. More importantly, I think it is important that this legislation was thoroughly vetted in two committees, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary, and even passed by voice vote in the Committee on the Judiciary. Just weeks ago these same committees once again took testimony and the bill passed through the Committee on Energy and Commerce by voice vote.
The Committee on Rules last night took testimony for over 2 hours and reasonably provided 2 hours of general debate, in addition to the standard motion to recommit, and I believe we will have a full hour on this rule today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher). The gentleman, a doctor, is an expert in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue on the debate of the issue of the day, which is medical liability. I must tell you, while I guess it is important to listen to some of the process, and half of this debate by the leadership of our House is on the process, I am hoping that we can continue to hear the debate that was at least opened by myself and my good friend from Florida who has a different view.
I look at it that we need to helm doctors and patients, and to make sure we can control the costs of malpractice insurance. I have listened to some of the debate on the other side that it is the doctors and insurance companies that are at fault.
It is an important debate. This is a debate that was heard 7 months ago in both the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Committee on the Judiciary voted by voice vote to put the bill out. Only recently we have had those hearings again in the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary, and, in a bipartisan fashion, it was passed by a voice vote there.
Last night we took 2 hours of testimony. The Committee on Rules responded with a 2-hour debate, plus what will be a full hour of the resolution, now going forward here on the rule itself.
I look forward to the debate, I look forward to hearing it, and then I look forward to voting up or down on whether we are going to help patients or not.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
(Mr. KELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a member of the Committee on Rules and Chair of the Republican Conference.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).
(Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), who is an expert on the Committee on Energy and Commerce on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
I hope my colleagues have had the opportunity to read the heart- wrenching testimony presented by Leanne
Dyess earlier this month before the Committee on the Judiciary. I hope their compassion will allow them to consider how it would feel if a similar tragedy befell someone they love simply because doctors had been pushed out of the area; and I hope they can recognize that, today, we have the opportunity to prevent such tragedies from happening to others.
The HEALTH Act is about patients getting the best possible care they can when and where they need it. Dollar signs do not cure people; doctors do. Let us make sure doctors and other providers all across the country remain open for business.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation. A ``yes'' vote is a vote for patients.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, there is one word that best describes this closed rule: cowardly. This is a Republican leadership that fears a real debate on this cold hearted proposal that would rob victims of medical…
Mr. Speaker, there is one word that best describes this closed rule: cowardly. This is a Republican leadership that fears a real debate on this cold hearted proposal that would rob victims of medical malpractice. They fear that too many of their own Members would vote for a democratic bill because it makes sense and would address the problem.
They have decided to dodge a clean vote on a real bill and bury real debate in procedural doubletalk. They have decided to let their Members hide behind parliamentary tricks.
The Republican leadership has shredded any semblance of fairness or open debate. Just last year, for the first time since 1910, this Republican leadership denied the Minority party a motion to recommit. Today, the two most senior members of the House of Representatives, who are also the two Ranking Democrats on the Committees of jurisdiction, are being denied the opportunity to offer the amendment of their choosing.
The Republican leadership's bill doesn't solve the problem of medical malpractice insurance rates skyrocketing. It has no insurance reform at all. Doctors who are being price gouged by insurance companies will not see one cent of savings from this bill.
The simple fact is that draconian caps on damages do not reduce insurance premiums. In a comparison of states that enacted severe tort restrictions in the mid-1980s and those that resisted enacting any tort reform, no correlation was found between tort reform and insurance rates.
Our bill takes away the antitrust exemption for medical malpractice insurance providers that has allowed those providers to collude to jack up rates for doctors.
The Republican leadership's bill does nothing about the deadly problem of medical malpractice that costs victims literally their life and limb. Between 44,000 and 98,000 people die each year because of medical negligence in hospitals and the Republican answer is to take away the rights of surviving family members and accountability for bad apple health care providers.
H.R. 5 does nothing about the fact that 5% of all doctors are responsible for 54% of malpractice claims paid. H.R. 5 does nothing to solve the problem that medical malpractice is the fifth leading cause of death in the country.
Our bill preserves accountability in the health care system.
The Republican leadership's bill does nothing about frivolous lawsuits, only hurts victims. All this bill does is take away compensation from the most seriously injured plaintiffs. These are the victims who have a case that has so much merit that a jury of their peers decides they deserve more than $250,000 in non-economic damages.
Our bill requires an attorney to file a certificate of merit that an action is not frivolous and, if that certificate is false, that attorney can be disbarred.
The Republican bill takes a chain saw to the health care system instead of a scalpel. It is no wonder they fear a fair and honest debate and a clean vote.
I urge Members to:
(1) Vote ``no'' on the Previous Question so that we can make in order a vote on Conyers-Dingell and other worthy Democratic amendments.
(2) If we are not successful in defeating the previous question, vote ``no'' on this one sided, anti-democratic rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 139--Medical Malpractice: H.R. 5--Help Efficient Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2003
In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the
following:
``(2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting
of the text of H.R. 1219 if offered by Representative Conyers
or a designee, which shall be in order without intervention
of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall
be separately debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)''
Conyers/Dingell Democratic Substitute--H.R. 1219, ``The Medical
Malpractice and Insurance Reform Act of 2003''
section-by-section analysis
Scope. The legislation narrowly defines ``medical
malpractice action'' to cover ``licensed physicians and
health professionals'' for only cases involving medical
malpractice. These definitions are intended to include
doctors, hospitals, nurses, and other health professionals
who pay medical malpractice insurance premiums. See, sec.
107(8).
Title I--Reducing frivolous lawsuits
Sec. 101.--Statute of Limitations. This section limits the
amount of time during which a patient can file a medical
malpractice action to the later of three years from the date
of injury or three years from the date the patient discovers
(or through the use of reasonable diligence should have
discovered) the injury. Children under the age of 18 have the
later of three years from their eighteenth birthday or three
years from the date the patient discovers (or through the use
of reasonable diligence should have discovered) the injury.
Sec. 102.--Health Care Specialist Affidavit. This section
requires an affidavit by a qualified specialist before any
medical malpractice action may be filed. A ``Qualified
Specialist'' is a health care professional with knowledge of
the relevant facts of the case, expertise in the specific
area of practice, and board certification in a specialty
relating to the area of practice.
Sec. 103.--Mandatory Sanctions for Frivolous Actions and
Pleadings. This section requires all plaintiff attorneys who
file a medical malpractice action to certify that the case is
meritorious. Attorneys who erroneously file such a
certificate are subject to strict civil penalties. For first
time violators, the court shall require the attorney to pay
costs and attorneys fees or administer other appropriate
sanctions. For second time violators, the court shall also
require the attorney to pay a monetary fine. For third time
violators, the court shall also refer the attorney to the
appropriate State bar association for disciplinary
proceedings.
Sec. 104.--Mandatory Mediation. This section establishes an
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) system for medical
malpractice cases. Participation in mediation shall be in
lieu of any other ADR method required by law or by
contractual arrangements by the parties. A similar approach
is recommended by the Committee for Economic Development
(CED), which suggests that defendants make and victims accept
``early offers.'' The effect of the ``early offer'' program,
according to the CED, is that defendants will reduce the
likelihood of incurring litigation costs, and victims would
obtain fair compensation without the delay, expense or trauma
of litigation.
Sec. 105.--Punitive Damages. This section limits the
circumstances under which a claimant can seek punitive
damages in a medical malpractice action. It also allocates 50
percent of any punitive damages that are awarded to a Patient
Safety Fund managed by HHS. HHS will administer the
Patient Safety Fund through the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality. The Secretary will promulgate
regulations that will establish programs and procedures to
carry out this objective. See also, Sec. 221-223.
Sec. 106.--Reduction in Premiums. This section requires
medical malpractice insurance companies to annually project
the savings that will result from Title II of the bill.
Insurance companies must then develop and implement a plan to
annually dedicate at least 50 percent of those savings to
reduce the insurance premiums that medical professionals pay.
Insurance companies must report these activities to HHS
annually. The section provides for civil penalties for the
non-compliance of insurance companies.
Title II--Medical malpractice insurance reform
Sec. 201.--Prohibition on Anti-competitive Activities by
Medical Malpractice Insurers. This section would repeal
McCarran-Ferguson Act to ensure that insurers do not engage
in price fixing. The Act, enacted in 1945, exempts all anti-
competitive insurance industry practices, except boycotts,
from the Federal antitrust laws. Over the years, uneven
oversight of the insurance industry by the States, coupled
with no possibility of Federal antitrust enforcement, have
created an environment that fosters a wide range of anti-
competitive practices.
Sec. 202.--Medical Malpractice Insurance Price Comparison.
This section creates an internet site at which health care
providers could obtain the price charged for the type of
coverage the provider seeks from any malpractice insurer
licensed in the doctor's state. This section specifies the
availability of online forms and that all information will
remain confidential.
Title III--Enhancing patient access to care through direct
assistance
Sec. 301.--Grants and Contracts Regarding Health Provider
Shortages. This section authorizes the Secretary of Health
and Human Services (HHS) to award grants or contracts through
the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to
geographic areas that have a shortage of one or more types of
health care providers as a result of dramatic increases in
malpractice insurance premiums.
Sec. 302.--Health Professional Assignments to Trauma
Centers. This section amends the Public Health Service Act to
authorize the Secretary to send physicians from the National
Health Service Corps to trauma centers that are in danger of
closing (or losing
their trauma center status) due to dramatic increases in
malpractice premiums.
Title IV--Independent advisory commission on medical
malpractice insurance
Sec. 401-402.--Independent Advisory Commission on Medical
Malpractice Insurance. This section establishes the national
Independent Advisory Commission on Medical Malpractice
Insurance. The Commission must evaluate the causes and scope
of the recent and dramatic increases in medical malpractice
insurance premiums, formulate additional proposals to reduce
those premiums, and make recommendations to avoid any such
increases in the future. In formulating its proposals, the
Commission must, at a minimum, consider a variety of
enumerated factors.
Sec. 403.--Report. This section requires the Commission to
file an initial report with Congress within 180 days of
enactment and to file annual reports until the Commission
terminates.
Sec. 404.--Membership. This section specifically
establishes the number and type of commissioners that the
Comptroller General of the United States must appoint to the
Commission. Generally, the membership of the Commission will
include individuals with national recognition for their
expertise in health finance and economics, actuarial science,
medical malpractice insurance, insurance regulation, health
care law, health care policy, health care access, allopathic
and osteopathic physicians, other providers of health care
services, patient advocacy, and other related fields, who
provide a mix of different professionals, broad geographic
representations, and a balance between urban and rural
representatives.
Sec. 407.--Authorization of Appropriations. This section
authorizes that such sums be appropriated to the Commission
for five fiscal years.
(Prepared by the Democratic staffs of the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce.)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, because there is absolutely a medical liability crisis in Florida which will,…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, because there is absolutely a medical liability crisis in Florida which will, among other things, result in patients in Orlando with severe head injuries not having access to a doctor. Let me give one example of the crisis.
The Orlando Regional Medical Center is a large hospital located in the heart of my district in Orlando, Florida. It is home to the only level-1 trauma center in the central Florida area. It specializes in treating patients with severe head injuries. The trauma center was praised last month by the State of Florida as delivering patient care that is ``above and beyond'' that of other level-1 trauma centers. I personally toured this trauma center, and I can tell my colleagues it is a source of pride for many central Floridians.
Last week, Orlando Regional Medical Center announced that they were closing in April 2003 because the neurosurgeons in the Orlando area can no longer afford skyrocketing medical liability insurance premiums.
Now, how bad is the situation? Dr. Jonathan Greenberg, the chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at ORMC, personally told me that the malpractice insurance premiums have risen five-fold over the past 2 years from $55,000 a year to $256,000 a year.
We do not have to guess what the consequences are when this sort of facility is closed down. Just last week, Mrs. Leanne Dyess testified before our Committee on the Judiciary. Her husband suffered one of these severe head injuries in a car accident. There were no longer any neurosurgeons in the area because they could not afford the liability insurance. As a result, it took 6 hours to airlift Mr. Dyess to a different location. It was too late. Mr. Dyess is now permanently brain damaged. He is unable to talk, unable to work, unable to provide for his family.
We must bring common sense back to the health care system so that patients with severe head injuries have access to trauma centers. We should care about each other more and sue each other less.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5 and the rule. I will also include in the Record an article dated March 11, 2003 from Dr. Greenberg and published in the Orlando Sentinel.
[From the Orlando Sentinel, Mar. 11, 2003]
Neurosurgeon: Save Trauma Center
(By Jonathan Greenberg, M.D.)
A human tragedy of immense proportions is unfolding in
Central Florida, and my neurosurgical colleagues and I have
been unable to prevent it.
Less than two weeks after a state trauma-site review lauded
Orlando Regional Medical Center's Level I trauma center for
its high level of patient care and dedication ``above and
beyond'' that at other Level I centers, the ORMC
administration was compelled to inform the state that it will
go off-line as an adult Level I trauma center as of April 1
because of the lack of neurosurgical coverage.
Seven neurosurgeons resigned from the ORMC medical staff,
citing the physical stress of on-call requirements, medical
malpractice-insurance premiums, increased liability exposure
in treating trauma patients and the adverse impact that on-
call coverage has had on their private practices.
I cannot fault my neurosurgical colleagues for having taken
this action. They have complained that they were being
charged significantly increased malpractice-insurance
premiums--or were going to be denied malpractice insurance
altogether--for the privilege of getting up in the middle of
the night to take care of critically ill head and spine-
injured patients.
Three neurosurgeons have closed their practices and left
the community. Trying to replace them has been almost
impossible. What sane physician would move to a state known
to be in the throes of a ``medical malpractice-insurance
crisis,'' where insurance is either unobtainable or
exorbitantly priced, and where there is a constant threat of
frivolous but nonetheless disruptive lawsuits?
ORMC has lobbied vigorously for relief; we have
demonstrated to increase public awareness and spoken with
state representatives.
For those who denied that there was a ``physician drain''
or a problem with the tort system, who asserted that this was
only an insurance-industry, stock-market-cyclical financial
problem, who ignored the looming crisis, the end results of
denial, deception, apathy and procrastination are clear.
As of April 1, Central Florida will have lost one of its
most precious assets, the ORMC Level I trauma center. There
will not be enough neurosurgeons left to fully man the on-
call schedule.
We know that in the past many patients survived their
injuries because they were brought to ORMC; they would not
have survived elsewhere. After April 1, similarly injured
patients may not survive. I am profoundly saddened by this
prospect.
It will take more than an act of God to avert this
catastrophe. It will take responsible action by the governor,
the state Legislature, and county and regional leaders. Band-
Aid solutions will not save a health-care system that is
exsanguinating. ORMC has the only Level I trauma center in
the state without sovereign immunity. Relief from predatory
lawsuits and unaffordable insurance premiums and adequate
compensation for extraordinary medical care will be
necessary.
Mr. Speaker, this closed rule does a disservice to the legislative process. Medical malpractice is a very complicated issue, there are many different provisions, and we cannot possibly debate each…
Mr. Speaker, this closed rule does a disservice to the legislative process. Medical malpractice is a very complicated issue, there are many different provisions, and we cannot possibly debate each one with a closed rule. The fact is that one-half of the medical malpractice premiums represent \1/2\ of 1 percent of health care costs, and those costs have been going up at the same rate of health care inflation. California had medical malpractice reform, but the rates did not go down until there was insurance reform.
This bill does nothing to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, but it makes the bona fide lawsuits even more difficult to bring. The elimination of joint and several liability means that you have to chase each and every doctor for each and every portion of their liability. The young Mexican girl with the transplant, one would have to prove a separate case against each and every company, the transplant company, the hospital, and everybody else before she could get anything. She would probably use up the whole $250,000 cap before she could get anything.
The collateral source rule will shift the cost of malpractice onto the employer. If one has a self-insured employer, if one of their employees gets put in a malpractice-induced coma, the employer will have to pay the bill. This bill prohibits subrogation so that the employer cannot get the money back; the malpractice insurance company will not have to pay that hospital bill.
Mr. Speaker, we need to debate that and discuss it; but we cannot, because it is a closed rule.
I hereby attach to my statement, the additional dissenting views I offered to the Judiciary Committee report on H.R. 5.
Additional Dissenting Views
In addition to the dissenting views, I would add the
following:
1. In addition to the comments on the bill's elimination of
joint and several liability, I would add that this new burden
on the plaintiff is administratively unfair to the plaintiff.
The apportionment of malpractice responsibility is routinely
made in the health care field by apportionment of insurance
coverage. Health care providers can and do decide in advance
who will pay for what coverage. The plaintiff, on the other
hand, is not in a position to apportion damages, because the
plaintiff often has no idea what happened, much less who was
responsible. The entire concept of res ipsa loquitur is based
on the fact that some cases are so obviously the result of
malpractice that the general burden of proof is eased for
such victims. With the elimination of joint and several
liability, and without knowing exactly what
happened, the plaintiff will have to make a separate case,
including establishing a standard of care, violation of that
standard and proximate cause for each conceivable participant
in his care and always have the possibility of defendants
pointing to an ``empty chair'' or an insolvent defendant at
the trial. This burden comes with the costs of expert
witnesses for each doctor, nurse and hospital even minimally
involved in the most egregious and obvious cases. As the
dissent mentions, any defendant can always seek contribution
without the elimination of joint and several liability.
2. In addition to the comments in the dissent on the
collateral source rule, I would add that there are three
interested parties: the plaintiff, the health care insurance
company and the defendant. Good arguments can be made for the
plaintiff to benefit from the provisions he has made to pay
his bills. Some may have saved money over the years,
including a medical savings account, and others may have paid
for insurance. Those persons who have invested in insurance
should be able to benefit from their thrift. If one is not
persuaded by that argument, and is offended by the plaintiff
``being paid twice'' for the same bill, then one could
reasonably say that the health insurance carrier should be
able to get its money back through subrogation, and charge a
smaller premium based on the anticipation that some of their
claims will not ultimately have to be paid, because a
tortfeasor will be responsible. The last person of interest
who should benefit from the plaintiff's insurance should be
the tortfeasor. In fact the prohibition against subrogation
in the bill creates the bizarre situation in which a self-
insured small business could have an employee in a
malpractice induced coma, and have to pay all of the hospital
bills, notwithstanding the fact that the negligent doctor is
fully insured.
3. Finally, one of the reasons why the ``average''
malpractice award is increasing is because smaller cases are
not brought. The complexity of the cases makes it impossible
to hire an attorney if the award is too small to generate a
meaningful attorney's fee. This ``average'' will undoubtedly
increase if this bill is enacted because of limitations on
damages, limitations on attorney's fees, elimination of joint
and several liability and elimination of collateral sources.
A better measure of the impact malpractice litigation has on
the health care system is the fact that all malpractice
awards and settlements have been approximately \1/2\ of 1
percent of the national health care costs and have been
recently increasing at the same rate as the health care costs
generally.
Robert C. Scott.
Show 8 more
I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that there is a problem in America's medical system, but Republicans are not taking a serious approach to this problem. They…
I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, we all agree that there is a problem in America's medical system, but Republicans are not taking a serious approach to this problem. They are just playing politics and risking the rights of patients in order to carry water for HMOs and insurance companies. We know this, Mr. Speaker, because Republican leaders have brought this bill to the floor under a closed rule.
Now, on this very important subject, let me quote from a statement made 9 years ago by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), at a time that he was in the minority. He said, and I quote, ``I oppose closed rules, Mr. Speaker. I believe they are anathema to the concept of deliberative democracy.''
Mr. Speaker, if Republicans wanted to deal with medical malpractice in a serious and substantive way, would they be using a process that is, as the gentleman from California himself said, anathema to the concept of deliberative democracy? I do not think so. And would they be preventing the House from voting on Democrats' comprehensive medical malpractice reform plan? Certainly not. But that is exactly what Republican leaders are doing today. As a result, the only bill made in order by this rule today is the Republican one and it is a shocking attempt to protect insurance companies while attacking the rights of victims.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill will not reduce doctors' premiums, but it will protect HMOs and insurance companies, and it will punish patients who suffer from medical mistakes, patients like 17-year-old Jesica Santillan, who died because of a tragic medical mistake in North Carolina earlier this year. Or patients like the 1- year-old baby who died in Dallas last August after a surgical error.
That is right, Mr. Speaker. Instead of reducing malpractice premiums, Republicans are reducing victims' rights. Instead of protecting patients, they are protecting the profits of HMOs and insurance companies. It is absolutely
outrageous, but that is what you get with this Republican Congress.
It did not have to be that way, Mr. Speaker. Democrats, led by the two most senior Members of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), offered a comprehensive plan to bring down doctors' insurance rates and protect patients. The Democratic plan combines tort reform and insurance reform. It cracks down on frivolous lawsuits. And, just as importantly, it forces insurance companies to pass on their savings to doctors. Without this rate rollback provision, Mr. Speaker, insurance companies can just pad their profit margins instead of passing the savings on. That is a lesson we learned in Texas when we passed tort reform. So the Texas legislature and then-Governor Bush agreed on a law that specifically required that insurance companies reduce doctors' premiums, and that is all we are trying to do here. But Republican leaders decided to protect insurance company profits while they were reducing patient protections. So they defeated our amendments in the Committee on Rules last night.
Mr. Speaker, doctors and patients deserve better than this. So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. Then we can amend the rule to bring up the only comprehensive plan to reform medical malpractice, the Democratic substitute. And if Republicans succeed in passing this rule, I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill. Do not let Republicans sacrifice victims' rights in order to protect HMO profits.
I would make one other point. Last night in the Committee on Rules when challenged by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the committee, explained why the committee was not going to grant an open rule, why they were going to grant a closed rule. What he said was, ``This is payback. This is payback for what you did when you were in the majority.''
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. Speaker, I was sitting next to the gentleman from California, and I believe that I heard him say that this was payback.
Mr. Chairman, I was sitting right next to you.
All I can say is I was sitting next to the gentleman. I understand and I know what I heard last night.
Mr. Speaker, assuming that the Republicans are pursuing some sort of payback because they do not like what we did when we were in the majority, I would only point out that we rarely granted closed rules, and they normally were bills out of the Committee on Ways and Means. Bills of this nature, of this controversy, when we were in the majority, we permitted the minority to have a substitute on the floor, something which they have denied us today.
Mr. Speaker, Nathaniel is in fact the face of the devastation of H.R. 5. In the name of God and country, this rule says to Nathaniel, 6 days old, he is brain damaged because physicians and nurses…
Mr. Speaker, Nathaniel is in fact the face of the devastation of H.R. 5. In the name of God and country, this rule says to Nathaniel, 6 days old, he is brain damaged because physicians and nurses failed to diagnose jaundice. In this bill he would be denied under the capping of noneconomic damages that are capped. Nathaniel is the face of the horror of what happened in the Committee on Rules last night. There will be no response to our physician friends and doctor friends on the question of reducing premiums because they rejected my amendment that said 50 percent of the savings by insurance companies should be reinvested into physicians to lower their premiums.
They know that California did not have those premiums go down until California enacted insurance reform. This is an insurance giveaway bill. This is not going to bring doctors into rural and urban America.
Mr. Speaker, this rule should be voted down in the name of Nathaniel, now brain damaged. H.R. 5 is a devastation and a disgrace to this baby who lost the ability to live a good quality of life.
Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted by this closed rule and call on my colleagues to defeat the rule and the underlying bill. We have a health care crisis on our hands. We need to work together in a democratic fashion to address it: to improve access to care, to protect patients, to ensure that good physicians can afford to continue treating those patients, and to decrease frivolous lawsuits. The underlying bill does nothing to address any of those issues, and I and many of my colleagues came forth last night to present amendments that would have ensured that it did. Not a single one of those excellent ideas will be even considered today.
What in the name of God and Country is our Democracy coming to when on the Floor of the House of Representatives, there is not a single chance to debate and vote on one of many ideas that could save lives and rescue our floundering health care system?
I hate the idea of putting a price tag on a human life, or a value on pain and suffering. However, we all know that malpractice premiums are outrageously high in some regions, for some specialities of medicine. I understand that some physicians are actually going out of business because the cost of practicing is too high, and that we run the risk of decreasing access to healthcare if we do not find a way to decrease malpractice insurance premiums.
But it would be doubly tragic if we did compromise the ability of patients suffering from medical negligence from seeking recourse in our courts, and did not achieve any meaningful decrease in malpractice premiums. Therefore, I offered an amendment last night that would require that all malpractice insurance companies make a reasonable estimate each year of the amount of money they save each year through the reduction in claims brought about by this Act. Then they would need to ensure that at least 50% of those savings be passed down in the form of decreased premiums for the doctors they serve.
I shared this concept with doctors and medical associations down in Texas, and they were very enthusiastic, because this amendment would ensure that we do what, I am being told, this bill is supposed to do-- lower premiums for doctors.
Without my provision, this bill could easily end up being nothing more than heartbreak for those dealing with loss, and a giant gift to insurance companies. Parents who lose a child due to a tragedy like the one in North Carolina recently where the wrong heart and lung were placed in a young girl--they don't lose any money--they lose a part of their souls. We are going to tell them that their child was only worth $250,000 in non-economic damages for all of their pain and suffering. We are being told that we are going to do this to such devastated families, in order to enable our doctors
to keep treating patients. However, the Rules Committee has decided to prevent us from voting on amendments that would ensure that this bill helps any doctor at all.
Without debate and votes, a Democracy is not a Democracy. I will vote against this Closed Rule, and encourage my colleagues who care about helping patients and good doctors to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I fear we are doing a terrible disservice to our Nation's physicians and the patients who depend on them. We are deceiving them by passing a bill that does not ensure that doctors will…
Mr. Speaker, I fear we are doing a terrible disservice to our Nation's physicians and the patients who depend on them. We are deceiving them by passing a bill that does not ensure that doctors will actually benefit from these caps.
As a representative of southern Nevada I am all too familiar with the medical liability issue. Nevada has faced a serious medical malpractice crisis for years. Doctors cannot afford insurance premiums and they are threatening to leave the State. Some have and some are refusing to accept new patients.
In August of 2002, Nevada passed a carefully balanced tort reform bill which limited noneconomic damages to $350,000 and allowed for judicial discretion in particularly egregious cases. Nevada passed caps. But the medical insurance companies have refused and have failed to reduce their premiums.
This Congress cannot for a minute pretend that we have addressed the real problem of skyrocketing insurance rates if we limit our prescription to liability caps. We must also provide doctors with insurance reforms as well.
Medical liability reform is worthless if we ignore all of the evidence demonstrating that the current crisis is due more to insurance company miscues than liability claims. We must combine them both and I urge you to reject this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
As a Representative of southern Nevada, I am all too familiar with this medical liability issue. Nevada has faced a serious medical malpractice crisis for the last year. Doctors cannot afford insurance premiums and are threatening to leave the State. Some have or are refusing to accept new patients.
I convened discussion groups of doctors and lawyers at my home to try to understand the medical malpractice issue, and it's a regular conversation in my own home as my husband and I, a doctor and lawyer, have searched for effective solutions to this crisis.
Nevada's problem is not one of obscene awards and lawsuits, but of poor calculations and bad decisions on the part of insurers over the past couple of decades.
Nevada's problem is the result of artificially inflated profits, over saturation and price slashing by the insurance company and when Nevada was no longer profitable, St. Paul Insurance Co. withdrew from the market. When that happened, 60% of Nevada's doctors lost their insurance carrier and the remaining medical malpractice insurance companies raised their rates to unconscionable extremes.
In August of 2002, Nevada passed a carefully balanced tort reform bill which limited non-economic damages to $350,000 and allowed for judicial discretion in particularly egregious cases.
Nevada passed caps, but the medical insurance companies have refused and have failed to reduce their premiums.
The evidence demonstrates that judgements are not the full, or even a large measure of the problem. And therefore caps will have a very limited effect on solving this problem.
This Congress cannot--for a minute--pretend that we have addressed the very real problem of skyrocketing insurance rates if we limit our prescription to liability caps. We must also provide doctors with insurance reforms as well.
Medical liability reform is worthless if we ignore all the evidence demonstrating that the current crisis is due more to insurance company miscues than to liability claims.
It is fundamentally unfair and bad public policy to limit jury awards without directly addressing reform of the insurance industry. If this Congress is going to pass tort reform, it should be accompanied by insurance reform so that insurance companies will pass along the savings, and doctors become the direct beneficiaries of cap limitations.
Anything less will fail to solve the malpractice crisis in my State and in this Nation.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this Rule. We are doing a terrible disservice to our Nation's physicians and to the patients that depend on them. We are deceiving them by passing a bill that does not insure that the doctors will actually benefit from caps.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I thank my friend for yielding. Would the gentleman state the quote again that I said? I did not hear it correctly. I never said anything of the kind. I never…
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
I thank my friend for yielding. Would the gentleman state the quote again that I said? I did not hear it correctly.
I never said anything of the kind.
I never said anything of the kind. I just would like the record to show that, Mr. Speaker.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to be a Member of this institution, and it is an honor for me to have the opportunity to follow my very good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House.
As we have listened to the arguments that have been provided about the rights of the minority, I have to say that while the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) served for 14 years as chairman of the Committee on Commerce, I served for 14 years as a member of the minority in this institution. When we won the majority in 1994, I felt very strongly about something that had existed under the democratic rule in this place for 4 uninterrupted decades. I felt strongly about ensuring that the minority had the right to come forward with at least an opportunity, through an amendment and a motion to recommit, which was denied us on many occasions.
Now, last night when we had the testimony in the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) told me that he came here in 1955, and our good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) came here in 1965, and they had never known of any instance whatsoever when the Democrats had denied the Republican minority the opportunity to consider at least an opportunity to amend through a recommittal motion.
I have to say that I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), my friend; but I have a list right here of in the 100th Congress, 16 examples of where this was denied.
Now, this issue of payback has come up. Well, so is this payback now that we are imposing on the minority? Absolutely not. Because when we passed our opening day rules package, having served 14 years in the minority, I was very sensitive to make sure that we would guarantee the minority that right to offer a motion to recommit with an amendment, and that is exactly what is going to exist under this process.
Now, I believe that we should have as open and as fair a process as we can, and I stand here continuing to be committed to our goal of ensuring that the minority does have as many rights as possible, and I will continue to fight in behalf of that, because I believe in the Madisonian spirit of minority rights.
I also know that we have a responsibility to move our agenda. And we are doing that, while guaranteeing these minority rights.
Now, when we opened this process last night, I am very happy that my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), began by talking about the fact that we did meet his request to provide 2 hours. There will be a debate. There will be an opportunity for Members to voice their concern, regardless of what side of this issue they are on. I happen to think that it is very important for us to also recognize that the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce both had full markups with the exchange of ideas, and the people who have stood up to speak against this rule are people who in fact offered amendments through the committee process. The committee process has worked very effectively here.
We have come together with a package which I believe, through both committees, can, in fact, have an opportunity to be heard; and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this rule and for the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for reminding me.
Mr. Speaker, I will have to say it is rather amazing that when the minority is wrong on policy, they focus on process. Mr. Speaker, as a family physician, I have always tried to do what is best for…
Mr. Speaker, I will have to say it is rather amazing that when the minority is wrong on policy, they focus on process.
Mr. Speaker, as a family physician, I have always tried to do what is best for patients, and as a Member of Congress I still try to do what is best for patients in Kentucky and all across America.
Not at this time. I have 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, what is best for the patient? I believe that unlimited medical liability awards are bad for patients, because they cause malpractice insurance prices to climb, resulting in more expensive care, fewer doctors, and problems obtaining access to needed care.
H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act of 2003, actually ensures fair compensation for everyone. We need to keep in mind that everyone is entitled to full compensation for their losses, medical bills and wages under H.R. 5.
It is not unusual to hear stories of doctors moving from Kentucky to Indiana, where they have enacted comprehensive liability reform, to take advantage of lower costs of medical liability insurance.
Passing the HEALTH Act, which reasonably reforms our liability system, will hold premiums at a lower, more predictable rate. That will ensure patients are not left without their local physician, who may be otherwise driven out of their practice. And to say that this bill will not reduce frivolous lawsuits and reduce malpractice premiums is truly laughable. Lawsuits do not prevent injuries, they do not reduce medical errors, but they do create an atmosphere of fear, defensiveness and distrust in the doctor-patient relationship.
In fact, a recent study estimated that defensive medicine cost $163 per person per year in Kentucky. That means Kentucky spends about $655 million on unnecessary care due to fear of litigation.
Let me give you specific examples, too. Blue Grass Orthopedic Group in my district has never lost any of the handful of claims filed against its eight doctors. Yet their premiums, which were $222,000 last year, shot up to $635,000, nearly tripling in a single year. Why? Because personal injury lawyers, hoping to hit the jackpot, file frivolous lawsuits.
More than 70 percent of Kentucky physicians say their medical liability insurance premiums increased in 2002. Emergency physicians saw increases greater than 200 percent, general surgeons and orthopedists saw increases between 87 and 122 percent, and obstetricians and internists saw increases between 40 and 64 percent. Several saw several hundred percent increases in their premiums. In other words, this is just unsustainable.
It is estimated that for every obstetrician that leaves a practice in Kentucky, 140 women are left without their physician. That means that women during prenatal care will have to drive an extra 30 or 50 minutes to see a doctor. That also means during labor if that unborn child is in fetal distress, there is an extra 30 minutes of fetal distress, which could blankly rob that child of all their hopes and future of what they potentially could be.
As a family physician, I took an oath to do no harm. The only bill today that will help physicians keep that oath is one that ensures safe and timely access to care through reasonable, comprehensive and effective health care liability reform, and that is H.R. 5. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and vote yes on H.R. 5.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point? We yielded on our side. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to say to my friend from Kentucky, who says that we rise to focus…
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
We yielded on our side.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to say to my friend from Kentucky, who says that we rise to focus on process, I tell my friend from Kentucky there is a reason for that, because your Committee on Rules does not have the courage to allow us to debate substance. It does not have the courage to allow us to offer a substitute and amendments to your bill so that we could discuss substance. Have courage on your side, that substance is what ought to be at risk here. We are prepared to debate it. Allow us to do so.
Mr. Speaker, once again today the Republican leadership is employing outrageous tactics that trample the rights of the minority and rig the rules of this debate.
As long as the gentleman yielded to me.
Mr. Speaker, these tactics demean the People's House. Hear me. Hear me. These tactics demean the People's House, demean democracy, demean freedom, and they fly in the face of commitments by Republicans when they regained the majority to run an open and deliberative process.
These comments are on the record. Here is how Gerald Solomon, the former Republican Chair of the Committee on Rules, explained it in November of 1994 when you were just about to take power. This is a quote, on the record:
``The guiding principles will be openness and fairness. The Rules Committee will no longer rig the procedure to contrive a predetermined outcome. From now on,'' the Republicans said, ``the Rules Committee will clear the stage for debate and let the House work its will.''
The year before, Congressman Solomon remarked, ``Every time we deny an open amendment process on an important piece of legislation, we are disenfranchising the people and their representatives from the legislative process.''
Mr. Speaker, this side of the aisle represents at least 140 million people. This side of the aisle represents 140 million Americans, and you have shut them up today, and you shut them up last week, and you may be considering shutting us up next week. Not 204 or 205 Democrats, but 140 million Americans.
I submit that this is precisely what we are doing today under this closed rule, which is what Mr. Solomon said you would not do. But you do it this day, and you demean this House.
I would say to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), yes, that is why we talk about process, because we want to show why we are not serving doctors this day; why in State after State after State that have capped recovery premiums have not gone down. Doctors will not be served by this legislation you offer, and you will not allow us an amendment to do something that will protect doctors, that will protect patients, that will protect injured people.
This is a travesty of democracy, and it is a travesty for people who are injured severely by the negligence of others.
Vote against the previous question, vote against this bill, vote for fairness and equity in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, vote down this iniquitous rule. It is unfair. It is demeaning. It strikes at the heart of the parliamentary practices that are the proud tradition of this body.…
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, vote down this iniquitous rule. It is unfair. It is demeaning. It strikes at the heart of the parliamentary practices that are the proud tradition of this body. It also tears at the throat of honorable and open and fair debate. It denies every Member, not just Democrats, the right to offer amendments to the bill. Mr. Speaker, 31 amendments were requested of the Committee on Rules last night; not a one was given. A substitute was given.
The chairman of the committee talks of the need to have a fair and open process. Well, we do not have a fair and open process. Therefore, vote down the rule, vote down the previous question. It is an outrage, and it is inconsistent with the tradition and practices of the House.
I would point out that in the rules, rule XVI, clause 6 begins, ``When an amendable proposition is under consideration, a motion to amend and a motion to amend that amendment shall be in order.'' It is in the rules. The Committee on Rules should read it.
We are not discussing the substance of the legislation. We hope to have a fair chance to do so. We hope to have a
fair chance to amend the basic proposition before this body. The Committee on Rules has not given it to us.
I went before the Committee last night and I asked, am I wasting my time and am I wasting your time by being here? The answer is, I was. I was not told that I was, but the simple fact of the matter was the decision had already been made. The process had already been carefully cooked so that no opportunity to amend the bill is before this body at this time.
We can talk about what it is that is wrong with this legislation and how the amendments would improve it. That is really not important. What is important is that the basic rights of the Members of this body, the basic prerogatives of the institution to perfect legislation before it has been denied by the majority, functioning through the organism of the Committee on Rules.
In 14 years as the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, never once did I go before the Committee on Rules to ask for anything other than an open rule so that all Members might have a fair chance to participate in the debate on the legislation and to offer amendments as the need would require, no matter how complex or controversial the legislation was. That is the way this institution should work.
This rule demeans this body. It demeans every Member here, and it demeans the Committee on Rules and those who have inflicted this outrage upon this body.
I say again, vote this rule down. It is wrong. It is arrogant. It is without justification. I note that it comes up on a day when this is the last item of business of the week and when this is the last item of business that will be done. Let us vote it down, and let us then go about the business of conducting the business of the House in a fashion which is consistent with the traditions of this great democratic institution.
Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion. Mr. Speaker, I am an unlikely radical. I called for a motion to adjourn today, that disrupted normal House business, in order to highlight one of the…
Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
Mr. Speaker, I am an unlikely radical. I called for a motion to adjourn today, that disrupted normal House business, in order to highlight one of the smelliest pieces of legislation in recent memory. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and this bill, although it is labeled as helpful to our military men and women, needs lots of sunshine and lots of disinfectant so that a new, improved bill can be truly helpful to our military.
I felt compelled to rise in reluctant opposition to H. Res. 126 and H.R. 878, the rule for debate and the ``Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act.'' I am one of the strongest supporters of our National Guard and Reserve, but this bill is not good enough for them. It only grants a tiny fraction of the tax relief that our Guard and Reserve deserve, and it is a bill loaded with special interest provisions that have nothing to do with the Guard and Reserve,
Fortunately, the Republicans have now pulled the bill from the floor because I think they were beginning to notice the stink that their legislation was causing. I hope that we will vote on an improved bill very soon because our service men and women deserve a clean, strong bill to give them tax relief now.
Newspapers across the nation have denounced H.R. 878 with headlines such as, ``Help Soldiers, Not Gamblers,'' but many members still feel compelled to vote for it on final passage because it does still contain some relief for our men and women in uniform. That is a devil's bargain. We should not be blackmailed into accepting special interest tax provisions just because they are packaged with all too meager tax breaks for our Guard and Reserved. Especially in a time of war, the U.S. House of Representatives should honor and reward our Guard and Reserve, and not limit their benefits as this bill does. Above all we should not load it with lobbyists' dream lists of special interest tax provisions, such as a tax relief for foreign gamblers.
The Republicans majority are using our Guard and Reserve as human shields for their special interests selfishness. They should have allowed a substitute to be offered so that Congress could vote for either their bill, with $189 million in tax benefits for our Guard and Reserve over 10 years, or the Democrats and Senate Finance Committee bills with $851 in tax relief for our troopers. A fair vote on these two bills was denied the House, under the rule, H. Res. 126, and that's why I am opposing not only the bill but also the rule.
Who would have thought that the Republican majority would add tax breaks for foreigners who bet on U.S. horse races to the bill, or tax relief for bow and arrow manufacturers, or tax breaks for mixing diesel fuel with water. These provisions should be considered separately, not in legislation whose title is the ``Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act.''
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
Show 11 more
I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I practiced defensive medicine for 15 years before I was elected to Congress. Defensive medicine is extremely costly. The way it works is…
I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I practiced defensive medicine for 15 years before I was elected to Congress. Defensive medicine is extremely costly. The way it works is very simple. The patient comes in. You think the patient has something. And then you think of all the other things that it could be and how you could be sued if you missed those things, so you order more and more tests. You may say, well, this is just one doctor speaking anecdotally, but actually this very issue was studied scientifically in California. They looked at the reforms put in place in California and its impact on charges in the Medicare plan. They discovered that over time after the cap on damages went into place and the threat of very, very excessive damages went away that charges for two diagnostic codes, the two codes they looked at were unstable angina and myocardial infarction, went down and there was no increase in morbidity and mortality. In other words, quality was maintained while charges went down.
This study was published in 1995 in the Journal of Economics. It was done by economics professors at Stanford University. They argued that the high cost of litigation cost the Medicare plan billions of dollars a year in unnecessary procedures and tests. They further went on to say that it cost, in 1995 dollars, our health care system $50 billion a year. Today that figure is estimated at over $100 billion a year.
Mr. Speaker, this is not just an issue of access. We are going to hear about access from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller). He is going to talk about the trauma facility in Orlando, Florida, being closed down because of this problem. This is not just an issue of high cost. This is an issue of the uninsured. As the costs go up because of the high cost of litigation, more and more people are pushed out of the insured market into the uninsured category. We all say here that we care about the uninsured, the people who cannot afford health care, but this is impacting them. This is impacting our competitiveness in the global marketplace because all these costs of litigation get transferred into the costs of health care that get transferred into the costs of our products and services as we compete in the global marketplace.
If we pass this bill and if the other body passes it, the President has said he would sign it, it is going to allow more people to get access to health care, it is going to reduce our costs through the Medicare plan, and we may ultimately be able to better afford more services through Medicare like prescription drugs. And, yes, it will help our businesses and industries to be more competitive in the global marketplace.
This is a good rule, it is a fair rule, and this is an extremely important bill. I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5, the underlying medical malpractice reform bill. This rule…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5, the underlying medical malpractice reform bill. This rule gives the minority party a motion to recommit with or without instructions. This motion to recommit provides the minority with an opportunity to amend H.R. 5 as it sees fits, something the House Democrats often refused to give Republicans before 1995.
As a former dentist I understand the necessity for this particular form of tort law and how the reality of judicial adventurism is a prime cause of rising health care costs and reduced access in our country.
I absolutely believe that medical malpractice litigation has a substantive effect on health care quality and costs.
In a recent survey of Georgia doctors, 18 percent said they would stop providing high risk procedures to limit their liability; 33 percent of OB-GYNs and 20 percent of family practitioners said they will abandon high-risk procedures such as delivering babies. In addition, 11 percent of physicians will stop providing emergency room services.
The benefits of capping malpractice damages are staggering. In California it is estimated that MICRA has saved under those with high- risk specialties as much as $42,000 per year, not to mention the $6 billion per year of savings to patients in California. According to the U.S. Department of HHS, limits on noneconomic damages could yield taxpayers 25- to $44 billion per year in savings.
Our founders incorporated explicit protections for citizens in criminal trials in the sixth amendment. However, they foresaw the potential abuse in civil trials and thus remained explicitly silent on the rights of juries to operate in civil cases.
In Federalist 83 Alexander Hamilton went to great lengths to discuss the absence of constitutional protections in civil cases, going so far as to claim that he could not ``discern the inseparable connection between the existence of liberty and the trial by jury in civil cases.''
According to Hamilton, the genius of the constitution was not only its flexibility in handling the changing nature of the American judiciary but also its reliance on the legislature to prescribe the effective checks on such changes.
Abuse in our judicial system can be remedied by the implementation and power of trials by jury, but a balance must be struck between that idea and the notions of common sense and personal responsibility. Unfortunately, our current system does not strike that balance.
I urge, as such, my colleagues to join me in passing this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the debates that has gone on for many years and it has always been characterized as a debate between physicians…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the debates that has gone on for many years and it has always been characterized as a debate between physicians and lawyers, leaving out one of the major players in all of these problems, the insurance industry.
This health care act is wrongly named. It is the wrong prescription for curing any malady in medical malpractice insurance. The proponents want to claim jury awards for rising insurance premiums. But a study by Americans for Insurance Reform reported that rising insurance premiums are not tied to jury awards.
Let me for a moment talk about how an insurance company meets a lawsuit that is filed against it. The money that is asked for in that bill is set aside in a separate pot of money as though they
had lost the suit. Of course, only about one of nine of those cases is ever brought to court, but that large pot of money still exists over there for the insurance company, on which they pay a very low rate of taxes. They should be a major player here.
Wait until your doctors hear back home that what we have done here today, because I am sure it is going to pass, will not do a thing in the world about lowering their insurance premiums. There is no mention in here that insurance companies of any sort will have to give back money to the physicians or to lower their rates. They are probably not going to give up anything out of that large pot they have had all of these years, and which we have no right, because the Federal Government has no oversight over insurance, to see what is there.
One of the most egregious things in this legislation and this debate is we have been told over and over that 5 percent of the physicians in the United States are responsible for more than 55 percent of the lawsuits. Would you not think that the sensible thing to do would be to get rid of that 5 percent? If this law passes, the 5 percent still continued to create malpractice, have bad outcomes on their patients. The only difference after this bill is passed is that patients will have no recourse at all.
The caps are really extensive. There is no recourse. And in addition, one more thing I would say. Not only are the insurance companies protected, but also the people who manufacture medical devices, HMOs, and pharmaceutical companies. It is very far-reaching and will do nothing to lower premiums.
Mr. Speaker, I would indeed like to debate the issue, I would like you all to live in my State of West Virginia over the last year. Our Trauma I Medical Center in the State's Capital, Charleston,…
Mr. Speaker, I would indeed like to debate the issue, I would like you all to live in my State of West Virginia over the last year. Our Trauma I Medical Center in the State's Capital, Charleston, West Virginia, closed. No specialist. It was reopened, but it was closed for 2 or 3 months.
In September of 2002, a young boy who had something lodged in his windpipe, his parents had to drive him 4 hours to get a specialist in Cincinnati, Ohio. Thank goodness it had a good ending, but it might not have.
In January, a group of Wheeling surgeons left the emergency room to illustrate the deep and devastating problem that West Virginia doctors are suffering with the high cost of medical liability. And, guess what happened? Our State legislature, which is predominantly Democrat, in probably the largest way of any State legislature, we have a Democratic Governor, they passed and signed the day before yesterday a medical liability bill that does in fact have caps on non-economic damages. Because, you know what? When your grandmother, when your mother, when your husband or wife cannot find medical care at a trauma center, cannot find an OB/GYN, when their general practitioner leaves to go to California, North Carolina, Georgia, that is a human problem. That is a health problem.
So the answer to this is the legislation that we are going to pass today. I proudly voted for it last year. I think it will help not only my State of West Virginia, but it will help every State in the Union.
We cannot retain and recruit physicians in the State of West Virginia because of this problem. We have had a brain drain because our older physicians are leaving, they are practicing defensive medicine, and they are afraid of the lawsuits that are pending in front of them. Sixty-three percent of them say they considered moving to another State, 41 percent are considering retiring early, and 30 percent are considering leaving the practice of medicine altogether.
Mr. Speaker, this is a devastating problem. Come to West Virginia and see. It is a quality of life issue, it is an economic issue.
Today I join with my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5, and I will be extremely happy to see national legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, my home State of Ohio is one of a dozen States that is facing a real crisis in health care. Simply put, doctors are leaving…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, my home State of Ohio is one of a dozen States that is facing a real crisis in health care. Simply put, doctors are leaving and patients are suffering. One by one, facilities are closing their doors, retiring early, and not performing various procedures because, simply put, they cannot afford the insurance. The result is a pending perfect storm, where all of the converging factors meet to create utter and total chaos.
Among Ohio physicians surveyed last year, 96 percent expressed serious concerns about the impact of rising liability insurance. Seventy-two percent in high-risk specialties said insurance premiums have affected their willingness to perform procedures, and 34 percent have admitted that they have to order more tests, perform more procedures, and practice defensive medicine just to protect themselves. But as a result, health care costs soar. In Ohio alone, there is story upon story of doctors retiring early or leaving the State just because of liability premiums.
Take Brian Bachelder, who had to stop practicing obstetrics this year because he simply could not afford it. As a result, his patients, many of whom had trouble just paying for the gas to get to their appointment with him, will now have to travel 50 or 65 miles further for prenatal care. Or take Dr. Romeo Diaz, whose patients had to actually chip in and raise $40,000 to cover his increased premiums. All of this scrimping and saving for a doctor who had not had a malpractice claim filed in over 10 years.
America's health care system is quickly approaching the eye of a perfect storm, a world without doctors. They are becoming increasingly hard to find in so many places; and even worse, when you find one, they often cannot help. Their hands are tied.
Far too many Americans are unable to find a doctor to deliver a baby, to perform a surgery, or to provide trauma care necessary to save a loved one's life.
Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to act today and pass a medical liability reform plan that keeps our doctors practicing, alleviates patients' suffering, and restores medical justice to this system.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. We should not be capping the awards for pain and suffering that an injured patient receives when they have been harmed by their…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.
We should not be capping the awards for pain and suffering that an injured patient receives when they have been harmed by their doctor. This puts the burden of rising insurance rates onto the innocent patient rather than the insurance company.
Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment to the Committee on Rules which was not made in order. My amendment would set caps in the bill of $250,000 or the total compensation package of the CEO of the insurance company representing the doctor in the case, whichever is highest.
It is not fair for insurance companies to pay their executives millions of dollars, give them bonuses, increase their pay when they are trying to deprive victims of their rightful compensation. In these days of Enron and MCI WorldCom, I believe that Congress should be siding with injured patients over corporate executives.
The Nation's largest medical malpractice insurance company pays their CEO $9.7 million, but even so they apparently cannot keep paying for the pain and suffering of patients their clients have injured and so they keep raising their rates. You have to wonder about priorities.
This is about Nathaniel and Linda. This amendment that I propose promotes corporate responsibility. It is a more fair approach, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that the Republican House leadership refused last night to even let this House consider my amendment, a reasonable amendment, to exclude the $250,000 caps only…
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that the Republican House leadership refused last night to even let this House consider my amendment, a reasonable amendment, to exclude the $250,000 caps only in cases where someone is guilty of gross negligence.
I support cracking down on frivolous lawsuits and I even favor punishing attorneys who file them. But under the guise of stopping frivolous lawsuits, it is wrong for the Republican leadership to protect those guilty of gross negligence even when the consequence is the loss of a child.
Jeanella Aranda was a 1-year-old baby. Last August Jeanella died needlessly in Dallas, Texas, because the transplant liver team did not check the fact that the father's liver and blood type were not compatible. Had they checked they have would have found out little Jeanella's mother could have donated part of her liver and Jeanella would most likely be alive today.
Mr. Speaker, I hope every Member of this House will ask his or herself this question before voting on this awful unfair rule: Had Jeanella Aranda been your child, would you think it would be fair for politicians in Washington to decide how to hold responsible those involved in her death?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) showed me a picture of Nathaniel, a young boy tragically brain damaged. I want my colleagues to…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) showed me a picture of Nathaniel, a young boy tragically brain damaged. I want my colleagues to understand that this bill of ours is modeled after California law. And in California law just last May under the same kind of law, a little boy who was brain damaged at a very young age because of malpractice was awarded $43.5 million. And our bill would do nothing to prevent this young man from getting what they need, and that is probably a lifetime of round-the-clock medical care, a lifetime of lost wages.
All that would be recoverable in full, as it should be, and on top of that at least a quarter of a million dollars in pain and suffering; and if the State from which the child comes wanted to, that State could raise that level to whatever it wants. We have a flexible cap. This is a question of balance. This is a question of balance. We have to figure out how do we properly pay for medical liability claims in a reasoned way that still allows us to retain our doctors and hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the HEALTH Act of 2003. This bill will be the first step towards curing the escalating medical liability costs. The runaway litigation has forced a dozen States into…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the HEALTH Act of 2003. This bill will be the first step towards curing the escalating medical liability costs.
The runaway litigation has forced a dozen States into near cardiac arrest, including my home State of Nevada. In Nevada medical liability costs have skyrocketed, forcing doctors to leave in droves. The trauma center in our top hospital had to shut its doors because there were not enough doctors to treat the patients. Just about every day you pick up the paper and you turn on the TV and there is another story about a pregnant woman or an emergency patient going into other States to have their babies delivered or emergency care treated. It is just one example.
In Las Vegas, Mr. Speaker, obstetrician Dr. Shelby Wilbourn packed up a 12-year practice and moved to Maine, where insurance rates are more affordable and doctors appear less likely to be sued.
Mr. Speaker, in order to remedy this, we must pass this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, everyone in this body knows why pregnant mothers cannot find doctors to deliver their babies, why emergency room and trama centers are closing and why physicians are leaving their…
Mr. Speaker, everyone in this body knows why pregnant mothers cannot find doctors to deliver their babies, why emergency room and trama centers are closing and why physicians are leaving their practices. The health care liability crisis has been worsening every year since 1993, when I first introduced this legislation that we are considering today.
The national median malpractice awards has been increasing 43 percent a year. It is unsustainable. Today the average physician faces a new lawsuit every year. The opponents of this legislation are convinced that the best place to make split second medical decisions is in the courtroom. But this bill is about getting better health care in America for doctors and patients and all of the people who rely upon this system. It is high time for medical justice and high time to enact this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. This is Linda McDougal, and like Nathaniel and many others she too would be a victim of the underlying bill H.R. 5. She received an…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
This is Linda McDougal, and like Nathaniel and many others she too would be a victim of the underlying bill H.R. 5. She received an unnecessary double mastectomy after doctors mixed up her results, her lab results, and erroneously told her she had breast cancer.
Under this bill her lifetime of pain and disfigurement would be worth $250,000 and not a penny more. I ask my friends, is that fair?
Well, if my friends have any doubts, I would suggest they ask their mother, their sister or their daughter.
Bill Text
Latest available legislative text
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 126 Reported in House (RH)]
House Calendar No. 8
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 126
[Report No. 108-25]
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 878) to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of
the uniformed services and Foreign Service in determining the exclusion
of gain from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax
exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the uniformed
services, and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 5, 2003
Mrs. Myrick, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 878) to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of
the uniformed services and Foreign Service in determining the exclusion
of gain from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax
exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the uniformed
services, and for other purposes.
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the
House the bill (H.R. 878) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
provide a special rule for members of the uniformed services and
Foreign Service in determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a
principal residence and to restore the tax exempt status of death
gratuity payments to members of the uniformed services, and for other
purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The
amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in
the bill, modified by the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
House Calendar No. 8
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 126
[Report No. 108-25]
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 878) to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of
the uniformed services and Foreign Service in determining the exclusion
of gain from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax
exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the uniformed
services, and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
March 5, 2003
Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed