|
January 17, 2002 To the Editor: For the past several months there has been a tremendous amount of discussion across the Commonwealth about escalating medical malpractice insurance rates and the means by which doctors and hospitals, and ultimately patients, will deal with the instability of the malpractice insurance market. This issue affects all of us. Pennsylvania has a reputation for being home to some of the finest hospitals in the world where the quality of medical care is second to none. The Commonwealth can rightfully boast about the quality of care given to patients, from family doctors serving our neighborhoods to highly trained specialists working with cutting-edge medical technology. My colleagues and I are committed to making sure patients continue to receive the care they deserve while, at the same time, reforming the medical malpractice insurance and litigation system. Doctors must continue to heal the sick, those that have been injured must continue to be compensated, and doctors must be assured the insurance they are required to have by law will be available so they can continue to minister to those in need. The General Assembly tackled this issue in the past, passing sweeping medical malpractice litigation reform legislation in 1996. Unfortunately, it was never given a chance to work -- the Pennsylvania Supreme Court suspended the legislation. Under the rulemaking authority granted to the court under the Pennsylvania Constitution -- the power to write rules regarding court procedure and the process of litigation -- the court decided the statutes we wrote conflicted with its rules, thus rendering this legislative program lifeless. Fortunately, the changes we made to the CAT Fund, the fund that insures doctors and patients in terms of catastrophic loss, survived. For the past few years, we have seen rates more reflective of the actual risk of area of practice and those patients that were injured continue to receive monetary compensation. However, recent events require us to look again at the issue of malpractice insurance and medical malpractice litigation. A number of proposals have been submitted by my colleagues, and we will begin the careful review necessary to make sound public policy for all of Pennsylvania. Next week, I will introduce legislation of my own. It is designed to enable the sweeping reforms we enacted in 1996 to become law. The legislative package I am submitting will give the General Assembly the same role Congress has with respect to court rules written by the U.S. Supreme Court. On the federal level, both Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court share rulemaking duties. Hence, once this becomes the law of the Commonwealth, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will not be able to scuttle the programs the General Assembly enacts to deal with difficult problems facing Pennsylvanians. Simply put, we will be able to enact meaningful reforms in the medical malpractice area and make those reforms stick. Some will argue my legislation is too far-reaching and that it represents a radical and dangerous departure from past practice in Pennsylvania. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If we look at the legal history of the Commonwealth, it shows the General Assembly at one time wrote court rules. The Practice Act of 1915 is a prime example of that fact. In 1937, the Legislature granted the Supreme Court, through statute, the ability to write court rules, but only in certain instances. However, in 1968 a constitutional convention convened to re-write the state constitution. They re-wrote the article that dealt with the power of the judiciary in general and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in particular. The 1968 constitution puts rulemaking exclusively in the hands of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and also gives the court the power to nullify statutes that conflict with the court's rules. My proposal mirrors what takes place between Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, thereby restoring balance to a process that effectively kills important legislative programs. On the federal level, while the court writes the rules, they do not take effect unless Congress approves them. The Court submits the rules to Congress by May 1. They take effect, unless otherwise provided by statute, on December 1. This system works well on the federal level. In fact, it is the mechanism that brings an unparalleled level of cooperation between Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. I cannot remember a time when I read a newspaper article stating an act of Congress has been voided because it conflicted with a court rule. We need such a system in Pennsylvania. If we are to continue to make sure patients receive the care they deserve and if we are to continue to enable doctors to do what they commit their lives to doing, that is, healing the sick and ministering to those in need, then we must allow the citizens of Pennsylvania the opportunity to change their constitution with respect to the rulemaking process. The citizens of our beloved Commonwealth deserve no less. Sincerely, |