Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that there is a crisis in medical malpractice insurance rates. Unfortunately, this bill does not mention insurance rates or offer solutions for the doctors who are feeling the burden of high premiums.

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

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

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

This bill tells people like Heather Lewinski, a 17 year old girl who suffered permanent facial disfigurement at the hands of a plastic surgeon who lied to her and her family, that the severe pain, trauma, and suffering that she went through is worth $250,000. The bill tells people like Linda McDougal, whose breasts were amputated after she had been misdiagnosed with cancer, that the loss of her breasts and dignity is only worth $250,000. And it tells the family of Jesica Santillan, the little girl who died because the hospital failed to ensure that the heart and lungs she was about to receive would be compatible with her blood type, that their little girl's life was only worth $250,000.

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

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

If we truly want to fix the real crisis that is plaguing our nation's doctors, we need to take a good look at the insurance industry. According to a study using the insurance industry's own data and conducted by Americans for Insurance Reform, while the total amount paid out over the past decade by malpractice insurers directly tracks the rate of medical inflation, the premiums that insurance companies charge doctors increase or decrease depending on the economy. In my state of Colorado, which has certain caps on damages, insurance companies took in over $119 million in premiums in 2001. Yet, they only paid out $36 million.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, in the April 22, 2001, edition of the magazine ``Science,'' researcher Irving Weissman and Nobel Laureate David Baltimore said, ``The wrong action here could close the door to an important avenue of scientific and clinical discovery.''

They were talking, of course, about the restrictions on Federal funding of stem cell research. As Ronald Reagan said, here they go again.

Everybody agrees that we must ban human cloning and our substitute does just that, but the difference in this bill is we allow for the very important somatic nuclear cell transfer technology which is being developed and which will be the cure for many diseases that affect millions of people both in the United States and worldwide.

I hear the opponent of our substitute saying, oh, no, stem cell research will not be hurt, but that could not be farther from the truth, and here is why. Stem cell research is continuing, but the base bill will ban the somatic nuclear cell transfer research that we are talking about. What this research does at this point is it takes somatic cells, so-called therapeutic cloning techniques, it replaces the nucleus, and it makes new cells of tissues that will cure diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes. This type of research is truly the clinical extension of stem cell research because without this research we will never have islet cells for diabetics. We will never have the cells for Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or nerve damage because we will not be able to match the patient's tissue.

We are not and we do not support creating embryos for the purpose of this research. Instead, what happens is researchers use existing embryos from reproductive clinics, which are going to be disposed of anyway, and there is no way that this research will be used to clone a human being, period. It will be a criminal act under our substitute.

I do not think people should demagogue this issue. These are very difficult ethical and medical issues, but unless we have some control over the research and unless we ban human cloning, we will not be able to have cures for all of these very important diseases.

As the co-chair of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, I think we need to do everything we can to support this important cell research but also to have strict control. Forty Nobel Laureates agree with this. More than two thirds of Americans agree with this. Senator Orrin Hatch and former Senator Connie Mack agree with this. And here is what Nancy Reagan said in a letter dated January 29 of this year: ``There are so many diseases that can be cured, we cannot turn our back on this.''

Do not turn your back on all of these procedures.