[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 7607-7608]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




HELP EFFICIENT, ACCESSIBLE, LOW-COST, TIMELY HEALTHCARE (HEALTH) ACT OF 
                                  2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. TED STRICKLAND

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 13, 2003

  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I speak on the floor today in opposition 
to H.R. 5 and in opposition to the closed rule under which we are 
debating the bill.
  I have heard from doctors and hospitals throughout my district that 
they are struggling with high malpractice rates. I think we all 
recognize that this is a big problem in many regions of the country, 
and I believe we must take action to ensure patients can continue to 
access quality and timely health care. In my rural Ohio district, 
access to care is a constant problem for many of my constituents. I 
hear the voices of the family practice physicians who tell me they no 
longer may be able to afford to deliver babies. In some cases in Ohio, 
pregnant women must travel long distances for prenatal care and 
delivery services because there is only one doctor providing these 
services throughout a county. Something must be done, but I do not 
think HR 5 gets it done.
  These are the reasons I have cosponsored H.R. 1124, which has been 
introduced by Rep. Dingell. H.R. 1124 would address high malpractice 
rates through moderate tort reforms, requiring attorneys to submit a 
certificate of merit declaring a case to be meritorious, and requiring 
medical malpractice insurance companies to dedicate at least 50% of the 
savings from these tort reforms to reducing the insurance premiums paid 
by physicians and other health professionals. In addition, H.R. 1124 
attempts to look at the broad issues that may have contributed to the 
high malpractice rates doctors across the country are facing by 
establishing an independent advisory commission on medical malpractice 
insurance. I wish Congress had acted quickly and in a bipartisan 
fashion last year--had we done so, we may already have more answers 
about why rates are now as high as they are. And finally, H.R. 1124 
would create a grants program through the Department of Health and 
Human Services to ensure that areas affected by high malpractice rates 
do not suffer a shortage of providers. However, we will not even hear 
debate about these provisions or others because the Leadership passed a 
closed rule that limits debate to the base bill. This does a disservice 
to the American people, to the House, and to the health care providers 
we want to help.
  I believe H.R. 5 will not address the high malpractice rates our 
doctors are confronting. H.R. 5 fails to address or even acknowledge 
the complicated nature of this problem: my colleagues who have 
introduced H.R. 5 haven't considered how the insurance industry may 
have contributed to the high rates or considered how individual states' 
systems have affected malpractice rates.
  Throughout the Energy and Commerce Committee's consideration of H.R. 
5, 1 spoke about two provisions in, H.R. 5 that I strongly oppose.
  First, H.R. 5 would limit the liability of HMO'S, drug companies, and 
nursing homes. These companies have never come to me to explain why 
their liability should be limited; in fact, I strongly believe 
consumers should have the right to use every tool possible to collect 
damages if they are injured by a drug or device company whose product 
is defective. My constituents have access to prescription drugs--the 
drugs are there in the pharmacy, ready to be purchased, and the drug 
companies aren't going out of business. Unfortunately, many of my 
constituents, especially seniors, can't afford to pay the prices these 
companies are charging. Since the drug companies are doing quite well, 
I think it's safe to say that they don't need the further protections 
H.R. 5 would afford them.
  Second, I cannot support H.R. 5 because of its $250,000 limit on 
noneconomic damages. Noneconomic damages are awarded by a jury to 
compensate a victim for intangible pain and suffering. These damages 
are often very important to low income adults, women, and children who 
often would not recover a large economic damage award when they are 
injured. In addition, someone whose injury is purely cosmetic may not 
have economic damages because the injury doesn't directly affect his or

[[Page 7608]]

her ability to work. For example, the facial disfiguration 17-year-old 
Heather Lewinski has had to live with for the past 9 years because when 
she was 8 years old a plastic surgeon committed clear malpractice and 
scarred her for life. The years of pain and suffering Heather has lived 
with and testified to before the Energy and Commerce Committee two 
weeks ago are real. Heather's lawsuit against the plastic surgeon who 
injured her resulted in zero economic damages, but she did receive 
compensation in the form of noneconomic damages. H.R. 5 would have 
limited her award to $250,000. 1 cannot vote for legislation that would 
arbitrarily limit the damages that might be so important to the average 
American who finds themselves injured through medical malpractice. 
Although proponents of H.R. 5 contend that the bill will limit 
frivolous lawsuits, I believe it will not do so; instead, this 
provision would arbitrarily cap meritorious claims of malpractice.
  I ask my colleagues: if we trust our jury system to make decisions 
about life and death, I believe we must be able to trust that jury 
system to make decisions about money.
  The increase in malpractice rates is a huge problem for doctors and 
hospitals, and that is why I wish this bill had been crafted with input 
from the leaders of both parties. At the least, I wish we had the 
benefit of an open rule that would allow real debate here on the floor. 
I will not support this bill because I think it fails to prevent 
frivolous lawsuits, fails to address the problems with the insurance 
industry, and fails to provide direct relief to communities that are 
struggling with access problems resulting from high malpractice rates.

                          ____________________