[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 51 (Wednesday, May 3, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3994-S3995]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 22 AND S. 23
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the
desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bills by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 22) to improve patient access to health care
services and so forth, and for other purposes.
A bill (S. 23) to improve women's access to health care
services and so forth, and for other purposes.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for a second reading, and in order to
place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I
object to my own request, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bills will receive their second reading on the next legislative
day.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will continue with our business, but I
have to stop a moment and note that both of these bills, S. 22 and S.
23, address an issue that is very close to my heart because they focus
on reform of a medical liability system, or a medical malpractice
system that is just flat out broken. The sad thing about it is that the
patients suffer. Future mothers--women who are pregnant--have to worry
about whether an obstetrician will be available if they begin to have
problems during their pregnancy. Over half the counties in America
don't have an obstetrician. If you are so unfortunate as to have an
accident driving home tonight or in to work tomorrow, you want to make
sure there is a neurosurgeon on call to be at that hospital to treat
you in the event of a traumatic accident.
The truth is neurosurgeons today are fleeing from taking trauma
emergency
[[Page S3995]]
calls because of the likelihood--no matter how good they are, no matter
what their past record is, or no matter what they do--of being sued by
predatory personal injury trial lawyers who are after them because they
can make a buck. That is the reality we are talking about. People
should be able to depend on access to good quality of care, whether it
is delivering a baby that future moms have to worry about--and in
America it shouldn't happen--or having to worry about whether there is
somebody appropriate to treat you in the event there is trauma.
That is where the vote is going to be when we debate these two bills,
and hopefully we will be debating these bills sometimes in the next 3
or 4 days.
I do have to add the other component to it because the other issue,
aside from the access issue, is the cost issue. Everyone knows that
health care costs are skyrocketing, and they are out of reach for many,
if not most, Americans today. As a physician, I can tell you that if
you know you are going to be sued, no matter who you are, and almost
all physicians are sued today--almost all physicians are sued--if you
know you are going to be sued, you practice what we call defensive
medicine. And since you know you can be sued sometime in the future,
for every patient who comes in, to protect yourself when you are sued,
no matter if you have done anything wrong, you end up ordering lots of
extra tests to have a paper trail documented to show that you made the
right decisions throughout.
It is estimated that so-called defensive medicine cost is anywhere
from $100 billion to $125 billion a year. In my own State it is
estimated to be about $2 billion a year. That is wasted money,
inefficient use, money that is thrown away. Who pays for it? The
American people do. The premiums go up. The cost issue is a separate
issue from the access of care. But the access of care issue and the
cost issue, the higher you drive up the costs and the lower the access,
quality falls. That is what is going to be debated when we address
these two bills on medical liability by Senator Ensign and the second
bill by Senator Santorum.
____________________