Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

On Senator Gregg's Amendment About Medical Malpractice

Caps For Rural Woman And Children

December 12, 2007

 

I oppose the amendment offered by Senator Gregg which would limit the legal rights that rural women and children are eligible to receive when they are severely injured in our health care system. Rather than providing protections for rural women and children, this amendment would likely lead to a lower standard of care by treating them differently than all other patients in the country.

 

The subject matter of this legislation falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee.  This amendment would overturn state laws regarding the statute of limitations and limit the legal rights of our most vulnerable citizens.  Nothing remotely related to this novel legal treatment for severely injured rural women and children has been debated or discussed in the Judiciary Committee.

 

This amendment does nothing to protect rural victims of medical malpractice and nothing to prevent the serious injuries of malpractice in the first place.  Damages caps, such as the one in the pending amendment, would arbitrarily limit compensation that the most seriously injured patients are able to receive.

 

The central truth of the troubles with malpractice insurance is that it is a problem in the insurance industry, not the tort system.  High malpractice insurance premiums are not the direct result of malpractice lawsuit verdicts.  They are the result of investment decisions by the insurance companies, and of business models geared toward ever-increasing profits, as well as the cyclical hardening of the liability insurance market.
 

Instead of blaming lawyers and the victims of medical malpractice, we should look at the special treatment Federal law currently bestows on the insurance industry – a blanket exemption from federal antitrust laws.  Our antitrust laws are the beacon of good competition practice and, when they are followed, consumers benefit through lower prices, more choices and better services.  When the insurance industry operates outside the structures of the antitrust laws and is allowed to collude to set rates, our healthcare system, our physicians and their patients, suffer. 
 

Earlier this year I introduced the bipartisan Insurance Industry Competition Act (S. 618), along with Senators Specter, Lott, Reid, and Landrieu.  This legislation would assure that malpractice insurers and others could not artificially raise premiums and reduce benefits through collusion.  This is a responsible solution to ensure competitive pricing – putting the burden on rural victims of medical malpractice is not. 

 

Arbitrarily capping damages available to rural women and children will not solve the flawed medical malpractice insurance market.  The problem at hand deserves thoughtful and collaborative consideration in the Judiciary Committee to achieve a sensible solution that is fair to patients and that supports our medical professionals in their ability to practice quality health care.

 

Unfortunately, the partisan amendment before us is not designed for creating a solution to a serious problem.