[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 106 (Friday, July 29, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




HELP EFFICIENT, ACCESSIBLE, LOW-COST, TIMELY HEALTHCARE (HEALTH) ACT OF 
                                  2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. CORRINE BROWN

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 28, 2005

  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we need a fix for our 
healthcare system, but H.R. 5 is not it. Limiting patient's legal 
redress and compensation is not it. The punishment should fit the crime 
and if a doctor or drug company does harm knowingly or negligently to a 
patient they should be compensated to make them whole. That is the 
standard and it should be decided on a case by case basis according to 
the facts of each case. It makes me very uncomfortable to place a cap 
and effectively a dollar amount on what an impact an injury has on an 
individual's life.
  The main group that benefits are big drug companies who will be able 
to evade their responsibilities injured parties.
  The bill will seriously restrict the rights of injured patients to be 
compensated for their injuries, while rewarding insurance companies for 
bad investment decisions and doctors for practicing bad medicine. It 
will do almost nothing to make insurance more affordable or available 
for doctors. That is the bottom line. In a State like Florida where 
topic of healthcare is on the tip of every tongue it is important that 
we take the right steps to solve our mounting healthcare costs.
  I am sensitive to the physicians and medical students who plead with 
me to make it affordable to practice. I know that physicians are now 
being forced to make specialty choices based on how much malpractice 
insurance costs, but let's be honest to our colleagues if not these 
poor students, the Republican leadership has trotted this bill out for 
purely political purposes--no hearings were held on the measure, nor 
did either committee with jurisdiction mark up the bill. This bill was 
only introduced last week.
  If H.R. 5 becomes law, this bill would have serious consequences for 
sick and injured patients. The measure's $250,000 cap on non-economic 
damages will hurt those at the bottom of the income scale the most. 
While corporate chief executive officers would receive economic damage 
awards that could easily reach into the millions of dollars, minimum-
wage workers and stay-at-home moms would receive a pittance. The cap on 
punitive damages is similarly unjust. It imposes an impossibly high 
standard of proof, completely eviscerates the deterrent that effect 
punitive damages have on egregious misconduct of defendants, and would 
not affect how large drug companies test and market their products.
  When investment income decreased because of stock market declines, 
insurance companies hiked premiums, reduced coverage and then blamed 
the legal system for a ``liability insurance crisis.'' This bill also 
contorts the American legal system, first by taking the issue of tort 
litigation out of the hands of the states, where it has traditionally 
resided, and by severely limiting juries' abilities to adequately 
compensate victims of malpractice. We place our trust in juries every 
day to judge the facts and to decide what constitutes justice. If we 
can trust juries to make life and death decisions on death-penalty 
cases, we can surely trust them to decide the appropriate level of 
compensation for those injured by medical malpractice.

  Our current tort system is the great equalizer in the civil justice 
system--it allows ordinary citizens to take on billion-dollar companies 
and millionaire doctors defended by $500-an-hour lawyers so they can 
get the compensation they deserve. The contingency fee system also 
deters frivolous lawsuits--no lawyer would agree to take on a case he 
believed would result in no award for his client and no payment for 
himself.
  Tort reformers often ridicule million-dollar jury awards, saying that 
the plaintiffs must feel like they have won the lottery. Tell that to 
the parents of the 17-year-old transplant patient who died after being 
given organs with the wrong blood type, or the Wisconsin woman who had 
a double mastectomy, only to discover after the operation that the lab 
had made a mistake and she did not have breast cancer after all. It is 
doubtful that any family that loses a loved one or suffers years of 
pain and suffering because of a medical error feels like celebrating 
after fighting their way through the court system and finally receiving 
compensation.
  The Institute of Medicine estimated in 1999 that as many as 98,000 
people are killed by medical errors every year--that is as many people 
as live in the president's old hometown of Midland, Texas. Instead of 
penalizing innocent victims of medical malpractice, Congress should be 
focusing on reducing the number of mistakes made. According to data 
from the National practitioner Database, 5 percent of all doctors are 
responsible for 54 percent of malpractice claims paid. The medical 
profession needs to crack down on these repeat offenders. It is 
disgraceful that the House leadership is using this bill as filler 
round out its ``health care'' theme for next week's floor schedule. 
Medical malpractice insurance rates and medical errors are important 
issues that reserve the full attention of Congress. These issues need 
to be studied by Congress in a bipartisan manner to address both 
problems and should not be used as political fundraising tools.

                          ____________________