|
|
The vision is a new system not based on fault. A statewide schedule for injury awards. All injuries compensated. All injuries reported. Insurance based on claims records. Doctors will study the data and ways to avoid the problem in future as part of continuing education. Bad doctors disciplined and insurers regulated, and trial lawyers restrained.
Senator Jane Clare Orie (R-Allegheny/Butler) As you know, the Senate recently passed Senate Bill 9 providing for an amendment to the constitution which would allow reasonable limits on non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits. I wanted to take this opportunity to write you to discuss recent and ongoing efforts to provide greater fairness, common sense and personal responsibility in the state's legal system as it pertains to medical malpractice cases. Senate Bill 9 was an important compromise. Most importantly, it will allow the people of Pennsylvania to finally decide this issue. The citizens of Pennsylvania have every right to be enormously concerned about the possibility of losing access to health care. High medical liability insurance costs are chasing doctors out of Pennsylvania and forcing some health care facilities to close their doors or otherwise limit services they provide. People are also frustrated that frivolous lawsuits are hurting both the quality of care as well as access to health care, particularly in high-risk areas. While the Senate has taken this important step forward, it is a long campaign to protect the access of all Pennsylvanians to quality health care. Putting limits on jury awards requires an amendment to Pennsylvania's Constitution. Senate Bill 9 must be passed by both Houses of the General Assembly twice in consecutive legislative sessions, and then approved by voters in a statewide referendum. Because amending the state constitution is such a long process, we needed to begin taking action on this bill right away. The bill is now in the House of Representatives for consideration. Also, limits on damages will only address a part of the problem with the current tort system for medical malpractice cases. We must work to address all aspects of the problem and address all three sides of the equation---insurance, doctors, and lawyers. Future legislation, including legislation that would establish caps, must be focused on continuing to confront the causes of this complex problem. History has clearly shown that what is needed is systemic reform. This is at least the third medical malpractice "crisis" in recent memory. And, this current crisis persists despite the fact that the General Assembly has already taken significant steps to reform the existing tort system-- primary examples being the elimination of joint and several liability and the passage of the MCARE Act. The Supreme Court has also acted to reform the existing system and has adopted rules limiting venue and requiring the filing of a certificate of merit in each medical malpractice case. Yet, the crisis has not subsided, and these facts remain true:
In light of the above, I believe that it is without question that there are five major problems with the current handling of medical professional liability cases in Pennsylvania. The current system: (1) is extremely expensive; (2) detrimentally affects health care delivery; (3) does not compensate all injured patients, (4) does not properly regulate the small percentage of practitioners who are responsible for the majority of medical claims; and (5) does not provide self-policing incentives to develop patient safety initiatives such as peer reviews of best practices. My colleagues and I are committed to ongoing efforts to a achieve a long-term resolution of the medical malpractice insurance issue. The same night that Senate Bill 9 was passed, we unanimously approved an important resolution. That resolution, Senate Resolution 160, directs the Joint State Government Commission to study the feasibility of establishing an alternative to the existing medical professional liability system. Those efforts are now underway. The Commission will look at a number of options, including replacing the current medical malpractice litigation system, either with an administrative system, not based on fault, or specialized malpractice courts with medical expertise which can properly determine issues such as the appropriate standard of care and extent of damages. It is within the power of the General Assembly to take medical liability cases out of the traditional civil system, and for the above reasons, and I believe that these approaches must be explored. Clearly, we need to bring own high medical liability costs that are chasing doctors out of Pennsylvania and forcing some health care facilities to limit services they provide. But reforming the existing civil system is difficult and has yet to prove fruitful as a solution to the issue (one need only look to the fact that the joint and several liability law is now undergoing judicial scrutiny). As the Joint State Government Commission undertakes its difficult task, your continued interest and assistance is important. CapNews Guest Speaker: Archives |
