MEDICAL MALPRACTICE UPDATE
NCSL Annual Meeting 2005
Law & Criminal Justice Committee Session
Moderator Remarks
Senator Michael Balboni, New York Senate
Chair, NCSL Committee on Law & Criminal Justice
August 17, 2005
In the last few years, the tension over the medical malpractice debate has heightened astronomically. State legislatures and the federal government have responded in a wide variety of ways to differing points of the debate.
This NCSL committee passed a policy at the 2003 Fall Forum stating that NCSL opposes any federal intervention relating to medical malpractice tort reform on the grounds that it is an unnecessary federal preemption of traditional state authority. NCSL did not, and does not, take a substantive position on the merits of issues like damage caps, but supports the autonomy of the States to make those decisions for themselves.
In the 2005 legislative sessions alone, all but two of the states introduced extensive reforms on medical malpractice legislation. 29 states enacted almost 60 different bills addressing medical malpractice reforms, ranging from broad-reaching reforms to a point-by-point enacting of the major aspects of tort reform. Medical malpractice reform work, in whatever shape it takes, is hugely important in the states and a lot of effort has been expended on this issue. There are handouts in the back of the room with summaries of all of the bills enacted in the states just this year, and an update of all state laws on various points of the medical malpractice debate.
Despite our best efforts and continuing work in the states, Congress is ignoring us. In the 2003-2004 session, the House of Representatives passed medical malpractice reform three times, overriding state prerogative on damage caps, introduction of evidence, and other court regulations. Just this year, NCSL staff has located almost 10 bills introduced in Congress, and the House of Representatives just passed HR 5 last month. Again, it overrides state prerogative in monitoring and regulating the state courts in medical malpractice lawsuits. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has committed that the U.S. Senate will address medical malpractice reform as soon as the Senate returns next month from their summer recess.
NCSL staff are working very hard to lobby Congress in our behalf, but they can’t do it alone. State legislators must contact their U.S. Senators to urge them to oppose federal medical liability reforms – to leave it to the states where it belongs – and to not ignore and preempt the work that has already been executed in the last few years. There are talking points at the back of the room as well to help explain NCSL’s position on medical malpractice when speaking to your members of Congress.
For today’s session, we have some gentlemen who have studied this issue quite a bit.
First: Professor Charles Silver is from the University of Texas School of Law, and he is the Director of their Center on Lawyers, Civil Justice and the Media. He has written a number of pieces on malpractice liability, and recently completed a collaborative study on medical malpractice tort claims in Texas from 1988 to 2002. He will explain their study and the results.
Second: Senator Frank Watson is the Senate Republican Leader in Illinois. Illinois was one of the states receiving a lion’s share of the national media on this year’s state activities on medical malpractice reform. After a number of years, the Illinois legislature has at last reached an agreement on reforms that the Governor has committed to sign. He will tell us about their experiences and the work and effort that was behind it all.
Third: Stephen Northrup is the health policy director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and works with Senator Michael Enzi from Wyoming who chairs that Committee. Senator Enzi is the sponsor of one of the federal bills for medical malpractice reform. His bill focuses on aspects of the medical malpractice debate not in the courtroom, unlike most of the legislation introduced thus far. Stephen will give us an overview of the federal bills introduced and the general tone of Congress on this issue.
|
