[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 19197]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 26, 2002

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
4600, the HEALTH Act of 2002. While this legislation should address the 
skyrocketing costs of medical malpractice insurance it is really a huge 
tort reform bill that threatens to weaken patient protections. This 
legislation goes well beyond medical malpractice. It would not only 
place restrictions on the ability of individuals to receive 
compensation when they are injured by the negligent conduct of health 
care providers. But it would also include, defective medical products, 
tainted prescription drugs, and claims against HMO's and health 
insurance companies.
  This legislation would preempt current state law regarding the 
statute of limitations for actions. During my time in the Minnesota 
House of Representatives, I supported legislation that lengthened the 
statute of limitations for medical malpractice cases to four years. 
H.R. 4600 would require lawsuits to be filed within three years of the 
date of injury or only one year after discovery. We must have a longer 
statute of limitations to help protect individuals who have diseases 
with long incubation periods.
  For example, a patient who contracts HIV from mishandled blood, but 
does not show symptoms until three years later, could not seek remedy 
for this gross injustice under this new law. A patient who has a 
medical device implanted and years later the device fails due to a part 
defect, will not be able to seek remedy under this new law. These 
patients deserve the same protections any other individuals who have 
been injured by other forms of negligence.
  The overly broad scope of this bill sets a dangerous new precedent. 
We should not prevent individuals from seeking remedy for their 
injuries by allowing medical manufacturers who obtain FDA approval, FDA 
``pre-market approval'' or ``are generally recognized as safe 
effective'' to be exempted from liability. We should absolutely not be 
preempting states' HMO reform laws that have allowed patients to sue 
for wrongful actions.
  I have heard from doctors the challenges they face over the 
significant increases in medical liability insurance premiums. I am 
concerned that additional costs make it more difficult for physicians 
to stay in practice, however, this legislation does not address the 
real problem. This bill does nothing to fix the increasing cost of 
insurance premiums and goes far beyond its stated purpose of reducing 
the costs of malpractice insurance, while compromising the health and 
safety of patients.

                          ____________________