The House on March 13 approved a bill (HR 5) that would limit jury awards for noneconomic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits at $250,000, the Washington Post reports. Representatives voted 229-196, "almost entirely along party lines," the Post reports (Eilperin, Washington Post, 3/14). The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.), would allow punitive damages of $250,000 or twice the amount of economic damages, whichever is higher. The measure applies to lawsuits filed against physicians, HMOs, pharmaceutical companies and medical device companies (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 3/7). In addition, the bill would allow state governments to increase or decrease the cap; no limit would be set for economic awards, which include medical costs and lost wages, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports (Embry, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/14). The vote followed "hours of contentious debate," during which supporters of the legislation argued that high jury awards are the root cause of high malpractice insurance premiums, while opponents countered that such a cap would be unfair to patients and would not reduce insurance costs, the New York Times reports (Gay Stolberg, New York Times, 3/14). Republican leaders limited debate to two hours and rejected amendments that would have eliminated caps, the Los Angeles Times reports (Kemper, Los Angeles Times, 3/14). Democrats were "furious" that they were denied the opportunity to present substitute measures, including a proposal by Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) that contained no damage caps but sought to deter frivolous lawsuits, CongressDaily/AM reports (Rovner, CongressDaily/AM, 3/14).
Reaction
The Hartford
Courant reports that the bill is a "key component in the Bush
administration's health care agenda" (MacDonald, Hartford
Courant, 3/14). Bush said the vote "is an important step toward
creating a liability system that fairly compensates those who are truly
harmed, punishes egregious misconduct without driving good doctors out of
medicine and improves access to quality affordable health care by reducing
health costs." Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) said the bill would serve those
who "get denied access to health care at critical moments, because some
doctor couldn't get his insurance renewed because the premiums are too
high" (New York Times, 3/14). However, Rep. Max Sandlin
(D-Texas) said, "The only people celebrating today are executives in tall
buildings owned by the insurance companies" (Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, 3/14). Citing drug makers' exemption from
liability, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who has opposed the legislation
throughout the debate, called the measure "another reward that Republicans
are giving to the pharmaceutical industry" (New York Times,
3/14).
Senate Debate
The Post reports that the
legislation now faces an "uncertain" future in the Senate
(Washington Post, 3/14). The bill "will test the ability of
the new Republican Senate leadership to ... build alliances with moderate
Democrats to break the longstanding legislative impasse on revising tort
laws," the Wall Street Journal reports (Rogers, Wall
Street Journal, 3/14). Although the House has passed medical
liability bills "at least" seven times since 1995, the Senate has been a
"graveyard" for such measures, CongressDaily/AM reports.
Greenwood said, "The difference between now and the past in regard to the
Senate is we have Dr. Frist as majority leader, and the crisis is more
severe than it has ever been, and it's more widespread"
(CongressDaily/AM, 3/14). However, several "prominent" GOP
senators have called for an exemption to the jury award limits for
"egregious" cases, the New York Times reports (New York
Times, 3/14). In a Senate Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee
hearing yesterday, Chair Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) "grilled" HHS Deputy
Secretary Claude Allen over details of the legislation, a move that
"signals that some moderate Republicans might not be as supportive of the
plan as their counterparts in the House" (Murray/Wegner,
CongressDaily, 3/13). The New York Times notes
that the legislation could require 60 votes in the Senate to break a
potential filibuster (New York Times, 3/14). Greenwood said
he would be "thrilled" with any Senate version of the bill because that
would allow the bill to go to conference (CongressDaily/AM,
3/14). Frist has slated Senate debate time for the bill this month
(Wall Street Journal, 3/14).
Media Coverage
NPR's "Morning Edition" on March
14 reported on the challenges the legislation faces in the Senate. The
segment includes comments from Reps. Greenwood, Tauzin, Sherrod Brown
(D-Ohio), Joseph Hoeffel (D-Pa.), Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) and James
Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) (Rovner, "Morning Edition," NPR, 3/14). The full
segment is available online
in RealPlayer.