[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 5999-6000]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   IN SUPPORT OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND INSURANCE REFORM ACT OF 2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs.

[[Page 6000]]

Christensen) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, as you know, I am a family 
physician, and I rise tonight to speak about an issue that is 
critically important to the viability of the health care system in this 
country.
  In addition to the impact of many millions of uninsured on the 
reduced viability of hospitals and quality health services for every 
one and our failure to make the proper investment in the health of 
people of color and in our rural areas, we have, for too long, allowed 
our doctors and other providers to be crushed by high and ever-
increasing malpractice costs. If we continue this way, there will be no 
health care for anyone, insured or uninsured.
  This evening, I want to focus on the malpractice crisis. On issues as 
complex as this, it is impossible to apply a single fix, yet that is 
what H.R. 5 attempts to do. Its only remedy is the instituting of a 
$250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, 
regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought. 
This cap is modeled after MICRA, California's Medical Injury 
Compensation Reform Act, which has clearly not worked.
  In addition, underserved minorities, children, and patients with low 
or no income are not well served by H.R. 5. Compensation for economic 
damages for minorities and women is often already much less than those 
awarded to white males. In a case with caps on punitive damages and the 
calculated economic ones, if the individual is working for minimum 
wage, unemployed, a homemaker or a child, awards will be small and 
possibly not meet the real needs of the individual or their family.
  But who knows what a young person's potential might be, or even that 
of an adult. There are Members serving in this body who were once on 
welfare. If they had filed for malpractice under what is proposed in 
H.R. 5, their award would not have reflected the potential they have 
now realized. I say that to say that we cannot project what a person's 
earning potential might be.
  Then H.R. 5 also caps HMOs. That and politics is what the provisions 
of that bill are really about, protecting the corporations, as has been 
offered time and time again in different ways for different businesses 
in just about every committee, all under the guise of helping the 
consumer or the little guy.
  Medical providers do not want to bear the brunt of political battles. 
They need real help. Their patients need their doctors and other health 
care providers. That is why I support the Conyers-Dingell substitute, 
and I hope they are given a fair rule today so that we can put the two 
bills side by side. There is no way H.R. 5 can measure up to it.
  The Democratic bill includes measures that have been proven to work 
at reducing malpractice insurance rates. If one thing is clear from 
States' experience, it is that caps alone do not work. The Medical 
Malpractice and Insurance Reform Act of 2003, the Conyers-Dingell bill, 
does not cap damages for corporations. It does not apply caps at all, 
and it only applies to physicians and other health professionals. It 
also has a better statute of limitations provision, which especially 
protects injured children.
  The Democratic substitute has several provisions that would cut down 
frivolous claims, including sanctions for attorneys and physicians, and 
it provides for alternate dispute resolution that could enable patients 
to avoid litigation costs altogether.
  In addition to creating an advisory commission on medical malpractice 
insurance, it brings insurance companies under antitrust laws that 
prevent price fixing and requires savings realized through the 
provisions of the bill to go toward reducing premium costs, and there 
are several other great provisions that time does not permit me to list 
this evening.
  Madam Speaker, I came to the floor this evening because there are a 
lot of misconceptions about H.R. 5 which have caused medical 
organizations and many of my colleagues to support it. In my opinion, 
the situation for health care providers is so bad that we are grasping 
at any straw to save the practices we have dedicated our lives to. But 
our health care providers and their patients need more than the weak 
straw offered by H.R. 5. We need real reform, real help.
  The Democratic substitute would provide that help and help get us 
started on the kind of reform that will bring long-term relief to 
providers and be fair to all parties concerned. I hope this bill will 
be on the floor tomorrow, and I hope that all of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle will support and pass it. And then let us move on to 
fix all of the other problems in our health care system and provide 
health insurance coverage for everyone.

                          ____________________