[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 127 (Wednesday, October 2, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1727-E1728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  HELP EFFICIENT, ACCESSIBLE, LOW COST, TIMELY HEALTH CARE ACT OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 26, 2002

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill 
H.R. 4600, which

[[Page E1728]]

is before us today. We are facing a medical malpractice problem. We are 
also facing a medical malpractice insurance problem. But rather than 
addressing those issues, this bill would actually make both problems 
worse. The Institute of Medicine study, “To Err is Human,” 
reported that between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die each year from 
medical errors, making medical malpractice the 8th leading cause of 
death. More people die from medical errors than from automobile 
accidents, breast cancer or AIDS. We also know that a handful of 
physicians and facilities are responsible for the lion's share of 
medical malpractice cases. Does this bill do anything about improving 
health care safety? Does it make it easier for patients to avoid 
dangerous physicians or facilities? Does it require that those with bad 
medical records—like bad drivers—get charged higher 
malpractice premiums while safe providers—like safe 
drivers—get discounts? No.
  We also know that we have a medical malpractice insurance problem. 
Just as businesses and health care consumers are complaining about 
double digit premium increases, so, too, are providers. Once again, the 
evidence suggests a solution. Medical malpractice insurance companies 
made bad investments—now they are raising premiums to pay for 
their mistakes. Studies show that there is usually no connection 
between premiums and payouts—with no or little regulation, 
insurers are free to charge what they want. Does this bill do anything 
about medical malpractice insurance practices? Does it even require 
that the federal government monitor premiums to determine the effect of 
this bill on premiums and make sure that insurers don't just pocket any 
savings instead of passing them through lower premiums? Do the authors 
of this bill have any evidence from the insurance industry that premium 
rates will come down or moderate if we pass H.R. 4600? No.
  Instead of addressing medical malpractice or medical malpractice 
insurers, this bill is a plain and simple assault on the rights of 
consumers—health care patients and their families who have 
already been injured once would be injured again and again because of 
this bill. There is not a single provision in this bill that 
strengthens the rights of consumers or improves their access to quality 
care. But there is not a single provision in this bill that doesn't 
erode consumers’ legal rights to win compensation for their 
injuries and to send the signal that dangerous medicine does not pay. 
This bill doesn't just affect physicians. It provides a broad liability 
shield for drug companies, nursing homes, medical device manufacturers 
and suppliers. This bill may well increase health insurance premiums to 
small businesses and individuals because it says that, if you are 
fortunate enough to have health insurance, your policy may have to pay 
your costs even if you prove malpractice in a court of law. And most 
disturbing of all, this bill puts a $250,000 price tag on the life of a 
child. The authors of this bill say that we shouldn't worry about caps 
on non-economic damages. After all, they say, there are no caps on 
economic damages. But there are no economic damages to compensate for 
the loss of an infant or a grandmother, for the loss of sight or 
mobility. This bill tells all those families who suffer those 
losses—through proven malpractice—that their losses are 
worth a paltry $250,000. I urge this body to reject this anti-consumer 
bill. I also urge my colleagues to read the attached letter, sent to me 
by USAction, regarding this important issue.

                                                    US Action,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 2002.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our twenty-four statewide 
     organizations, I want to express our strong opposition to 
     H.R. 4600, the so-called HEALTH Act, and ask that you vote no 
     when it is considered on the House floor this week.
       H.R. 4600 is a direct assault on the rights of consumers. 
     Instead of addressing the root of the premium 
     problem—the insurance industry—it attacks medical 
     malpractice victims themselves. Nursing home residents, 
     prescription drug and medical device users, and other 
     patients would all lose rights that they have had since the 
     beginning of our nation. Yet, there are absolutely no 
     indications from the medical malpractice industry that this 
     harsh, anti-consumer legislation would result in any 
     reduction in premium rates or greater accessibility of 
     malpractice insurance.
       At the same time that more and more FDA-approved drugs are 
     being pulled off the market because of safety concerns, this 
     bill would immunize drug or medical device manufacturers if 
     their product had been approved by the FDA or is 
     “generally recognized as safe and effective.” 
     While more and more families are concerned about nursing home 
     quality, this bill would limit the liability of nursing homes 
     that knowingly put their residents at risk. Under H.R. 4600, 
     Congress would place a $250,000 limit on the loss of a child 
     or sight or the ability to walk. These are just a few of the 
     most outrageous provisions of this bill, which would put more 
     consumers at risk and shield dangerous manufacturers and 
     practitioners from full liability for their actions. And it 
     does so without any guarantee that malpractice rates would 
     fall or even any provision that the federal government would 
     monitor those rates to determine their appropriateness.
       Again, I urge you to protect health care consumers by 
     voting against this irresponsible and dangerous bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William McNary,
                                                        President.

     

                          ____________________