Failed a procedural vote which required a 60-vote supermajority for passage: 2.24.04
The Legislation:
The Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act would limit the damages awarded to victims of medical negligence and malpractice during obstetrical or gynecological care. The bill would impose a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages, cap punitive damages no matter how egregious the malpractice, and penalize injured patients by allowing defendants to pay damages in installments. These provisions would apply to HMOs, nursing homes, and drug and medical device companies in addition to doctors and hospitals. This legislation failed to receive the necessary 60 votes on a cloture motion, which would have stopped debate on the issue and brought it to an immediate vote on the merits.
The Middle-Class Position:
The Middle Class Opposes: The middle class endorses a "nay" vote on the procedural question and opposes the substance of the bill. This bill, misnamed the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act, places limits on the legal rights of pregnant women and their babies. When a baby is killed, maimed, or brain-damaged because of medical negligence or malpractice, no amount of money can truly make a family whole. Nevertheless, it is the non-economic damages (damages beyond compensation for medical bills and lost income) from a lawsuit that provide some compensation. This bill would have imposed a one-size-fits-all limit on these damages, no matter how devastating the malpractice. This hits the middle class particularly hard. High-income plaintiffs are awarded higher economic damages because they lose more money from being unable to work. Thus for low- and middle-income victims, non-economic damages, which consider pain and suffering and quality of life, make up a larger proportion of the whole award. It is that prospect that enables middle income people to attract legal support that they would be unable to afford if they were required to pay hourly rates. In addition, the threat of significant liability helps deter hospitals from cutting corners on safety and stops pharmaceutical corporations from selling drugs they know to be dangerous. While the bill’s proponents argue that it would lower the cost of malpractice insurance for obstetricians, there is no evidence linking high malpractice insurance premiums to the cost of lawsuits. In fact, insurance industry representatives have said that they would not commit to lowering insurance rates if medical malpractice bills like this one are passed.
From the Experts:
“These doctors are seeking to broadly restrict the constitutional rights of families to go to court while weakening the system’s ability to prevent medical errors. Their solutions will hurt the most
severely injured brain-damaged children, while doing nothing to help doctors who are being
price-gouged by insurance companies.” –Geoff Boehm, Legal Director, Center for Justice & Democracy (February 24, 2004)
“I will never hear my child call me mom or tell me he loves me or even a hug. I only know my child is content and not suffering when he is asleep or lying in bed not crying. All I can do is pray that when I wake up in the mornings that he is still breathing and I can caress his head and tell him good morning. My son has no future but pain and suffering. No politician in Washington has the right to decide what is proper compensation for him.” -Shannon Hughes, South Carolina parent whose son was damaged by obstetrical malpractice (February 24, 2004)
Beyond this Bill:
This bill, along with other proposed limitations on the right to sue for medical malpractice is sure to be back on the agenda in 2005. Such bills always claim to make health care more accessible and affordable by limiting malpractice liability. But in reality, malpractice suits account for only a minute proportion of medical costs. Legislation to extend health care coverage to the uninsured or lower the costs of prescription drugs would address the problem of unaffordable health care far more directly and effectively. Meanwhile, if doctors have difficulty coping with the high rates charged for medical malpractice insurance, legislation should target that problem directly. For example, Congress should encourage states to regulate the rates charged by insurance companies. Legislators should oppose any bill that purports to solve largely unrelated problems by limiting citizens' access to the civil justice system.
Percentage of the nation’s health care expenditures made up by medical malpractice premiums: 0.62%
Maximum non-economic damages payable under the provisions of this bill to a baby who will go through life completely paralyzed due to the actions of a negligent doctor: $250,000
Maximum punitive damages under the provisions of this bill imposed on a doctor who has similarly paralyzed seven other newborns through the same negligence: $250,000
Rank of “reducing jury awards in malpractice lawsuits” on the list of health care priorities for Congress and the President in 2005, according to a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health: 11 out of 12
Number of times President Bush mentioned “junk” or “frivolous” lawsuits during a recent speech on health care policy: 10
Search our analyses of legislation
significant to America’s current and
aspiring middle class, and find out
how members of Congress voted on
those bills.
