Medical tribunal pilot programs

(a)

Authorization

The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to make grants to 5 States to establish pilot programs under which each medical malpractice case is heard in the first instance by a medical tribunal composed of a State trial court judge, a physician, and a lawyer. (b)

Eligibility

The Secretary may only award a grant under this section to a State that— (1)has an average cost of medical malpractice insurance that exceeds the national average of such cost; (2)has not— (A)placed a limit on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases; or (B)established or begun to establish a medical tribunal program similar to that described in subsection (e); and (3)submits an application at such time, in such form, and accompanied by such information and assurances as the Secretary may require. (c)

Duration of grant

A grant under this section shall be awarded over 3 fiscal years. (d)

Use of funds

A State that receives a grant under this section shall use grant funds to establish and administer a medical tribunal pilot program in accordance with subsection (e). (e)

Requirements for medical tribunal pilot program

The medical tribunal pilot program required by subsection (d) shall include the following elements: (1)

Hearing of case in first instance

Each medical malpractice case filed in the courts of the State shall be heard in the first instance by a medical tribunal. (2)

Determination by medical tribunal

The medical tribunal shall hear all evidence that would be admissible in the courts of the State and determine whether such evidence would be sufficient to support a finding for the plaintiff. (3)

Effect of medical tribunal’s determination

(A)If the medical tribunal determines that the evidence would be sufficient to support a finding for the plaintiff, the plaintiff may pursue the case through the State’s usual judicial process. (B)If the medical tribunal determines that the evidence would be insufficient to support a finding for the plaintiff, the plaintiff may pursue the case through the State’s usual judicial process only after filing with the clerk of the court in which the case is pending a bond in an amount determined to be appropriate by the State trial court judge serving on the tribunal. (4)

Composition of medical tribunal

(A)

In general

A medical tribunal shall be composed of a State trial court judge, a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State, and a lawyer licensed to practice law in the State. (B)

Selection of physician and lawyer

The State trial court judge who will serve on a medical tribunal shall select the physician from a list provided by the State medical society or association and the lawyer from a list provided by the State bar association. (C)

Defendant other than physician

If the defendant in a medical malpractice case is a health care provider other than a physician, then a practitioner in such other field of health care shall serve on the medical tribunal instead of a physician. The State trial court judge who will serve on the tribunal shall select such practitioner in a manner the judge considers appropriate. (f)

Study of effectiveness of medical tribunals and report to Congress

(1)

Study

After the end of the 3rd fiscal year in which grant funds are paid under this section, the Secretary shall collect from each State that received grant funds the following data: (A)Any change between the 3-year period preceding the State’s receipt of grant funds and the period during which it received grant funds, and between the 1st and 2nd and the 2nd and 3rd years in which the State received grant funds, in— (i)the average cost of medical malpractice insurance; (ii)the number of physicians actively practicing medicine; (iii)the number of medical malpractice liability insurance carriers; and (iv)the amounts paid by medical malpractice liability insurance carriers pursuant to settlements or judgments in cases against their insureds. (B)The percentage of medical malpractice cases considered meritorious by the medical tribunal that were settled prior to trial, compared to the percentage of all medical malpractice cases filed in the 3-year period preceding the State’s receipt of grant funds that were settled prior to trial. (C)The number of medical malpractice cases considered meritorious by the medical tribunal that were tried to a judgment, and the number of such judgments that were for the plaintiff. (D)The number of medical malpractice cases considered nonmeritorious by the medical tribunal that were tried to a judgment, and the number of such judgments that were for the plaintiff. (2)

Report to Congress

Not later than 18 months after the end of the 3rd fiscal year in which grant funds are paid under this section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the data collected under paragraph (1). (3)

Cases considered meritorious

For purposes of paragraph (1), a case is considered meritorious by the medical tribunal if the tribunal found that the evidence would be sufficient to support a finding for the plaintiff, and a case is considered nonmeritorious by the medical tribunal if the tribunal found that the evidence would be insufficient to support a finding for the plaintiff. (g)

Medical malpractice case defined

In this section, the term medical malpractice case means a civil action against a health care provider in which the plaintiff alleges harm arising from an error or breach of the standard of care by the health care provider in treating the plaintiff. (h)

Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this section for fiscal years 2011 through 2013.