[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 26710-26711]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   OPPOSITION TO THE NORWOOD-DINGELL INSURANCE REGULATION LEGISLATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. NICK SMITH

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, October 25, 1999

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to 
the Norwood-Dingell health insurance regulation legislation. I have 
listened to my colleagues and constituents to learn all I could before 
casting my vote. Although I am convinced that something needs to be 
done to redress a health insurance system that is out of balance, I 
have several concerns that could not be allayed.
  Norwood-Dingell properly expands the ability of patients to recover 
damages from health care plans in court. The current bar to recovery of 
any damages against a health plan is inappropriate. Those plans that 
act negligently or are found guilty of medical malpractice should be 
held accountable as any medical professional would be. Norwood-Dingell, 
however, would open the gates to these types of suits too broadly.
  Had the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
Representative Houghton, the gentleman from New York, been adopted by 
the House, I would have voted for Norwood-Dingell on final passage. 
That common sense amendment would have ensured that employers and 
directors would not have to worry about liability except in very rare 
cases. Under the vague language of Norwood-Dingell, however, there is 
uncertainty. Uncertainty is always a breeding ground for lawsuits, and 
the result would be their employers willing to provide health care to 
working families. Had Mr. Houghton's substitute passed, the bill would 
have had all the protection and access provisions of the Norwood-
Dingell bill, but lawsuits would have been limited in a reasonable way.
  I also support the same common sense limits on suits against doctors 
and other professionals that have forced malpractice insurance to 
skyrocket, doctors to practice ``defensive medicine'' and raise 
everyone's costs, forcing even insurance companies to raise prices and 
reduce quality of care. Doctors should not have any greater liability 
than insurance companies and they also need help redressing the balance 
of power that is now tilted too heavily towards insurance companies, 
which is why I am a cosponsor of legislation such as H.R. 1304, a bill 
that would allow doctors to come together when dealing with health 
insurers.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, we need to do more to protect patients and 
give doctors the freedom to treat their patients using their

[[Page 26711]]

sound medical judgment as the yardstick rather than an insurance 
company's bottom line. Still, there are now more Americans without 
health insurance than there were just a few short years ago and we need 
to make sure that we don't raise health care costs more than necessary. 
I would note that the Congressional Budget Office has not done a cost 
estimate of this bill as required by the Unfunded Mandates Act and that 
none of us really know how much costs will increase and how many of our 
constituents will lost their health coverage. Before passing a bill 
that will affect nearly every American, I think we owe it to them to 
find out.

                          ____________________