[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Page 19407]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              HEALTH CARE

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the fourth hurricane has 
visited my State, and that is the subject of my remarks.
  I am compelled to respond to some of the statements the majority 
leader has made about the condition of medical malpractice in the 
country.
  One of the great privileges of being a part of the Senate, it being 
the greatest deliberative body in the world, is out of the discussions 
of ideas, hopefully truth can ultimately be achieved. A number of the 
statements the majority leader has made are giving his point of view, 
one side of the argument. Indeed, it is absolutely no secret that there 
is a medical malpractice insurance crisis in the country.
  As the majority leader would have it characterized, it is all as a 
result of lawyers and excesses. Are there excesses? Yes, there are. And 
those ought to be reformed in the system. But in outlining how you want 
to solve the problem of bringing down the insurance premiums for 
doctors to protect themselves with medical malpractice, what is 
proposed by the majority leader leaves the main entity out of the 
solution, and that is the insurance company.
  The doctors have characterized this--indeed, some lawyers--as a fight 
between doctors and lawyers. But they have left out the main party, if 
we are going to reach a solution. I speak from a little bit of 
experience, having been the elected insurance commissioner of Florida 
for 6 years. I found myself, interestingly, as insurance commissioner, 
denying rate decreases for insurance companies that were medical 
malpractice companies because they were wanting rate decreases so they 
could get additional market share, but it was not financially prudent. 
It was not actuarially sound. This was during the 1990s, when the stock 
market was robust.
  Insurance companies make money in two different ways: One, with 
regard to their premiums, which ought to be actuarially sound for the 
risk they are insuring; and two, by investing those funds in prudent 
investments. And in the decade of the 1990s, those investments were 
paying off handsomely for the entire business community, including 
insurance companies.
  But what happens when the stock market turns south and the return on 
their investments is not there? Then an insurance company is supposed 
to have its premiums so that it can be actuarially sound so it can pay 
its claims due to the risk it has assumed.
  Well, a lot of those companies started getting in difficulty because 
they were not getting the returns on their investment. So they had to 
start yanking their premiums up.
  All of this is to say that if we want a real solution to this 
problem, we have to get doctors and hospitals, lawyers and insurance 
companies all in the room in order to solve the problem.
  The majority leader made reference to the State of California as if 
it were just a cap on lawyers' fees. That is not the history of the 
State of California. California not only did that, but they also put a 
limit on the increases on insurance premiums as well. So when we have a 
discussion, we should have a discussion of an overall comprehensive way 
to solve this problem. That is what I would like to see--this being 
less partisan, less ideological, less special interests, and talk about 
a solution where we can bring all parties in and get something done. 
That should be done at the State level. What we have seen from it is 
that States that have taken up legislation like that do not bring all 
of the parties to the table to find a viable solution.
  I felt compelled to respond to the majority leader's comments because 
in the debate that ought to occur in this body, it ought to be a 
comprehensive debate showing all sides to the argument.

                          ____________________