Pending Piece of Legislation Pending

Pending Piece of Legislation

Pending Legislation

The pending legislation I'm writing about has not only to do with the delivery of health care services, but the availability of health care services. A hot topic in many states is what is referred to as "tort reform," or the amount for which a patient who was allegedly wronged can collect in damages.

The battleground involves doctors and trial lawyers. The doctors argue that there must be limits placed on the damages a person can collect from them for malpractice. Without limits, they say, their malpractice insurance runs so high that it makes it so that they cannot stay in business. The trial lawyers disagree with placing limits on the amount a person can collect from a doctor because those limits would limit the amount of money they make by representing their clients.

One example of the battle taking place between the two parties is in Tennessee. That state has many of it's larger population centers located near borders to other states - Memphis is on the border of Arkansas and Mississippi, Chattanooga is on the border of Georgia, and the Kingsport-Bristol area is near Virginia, Kentucky, and North Carolina. Health care interests argue that many doctors are moving their businesses to the suburbs in the bordering states in order to avoid the lack of tort limits in Tennessee.

The original objective of legislation put forward by Republicans (who side with the doctors) was to put a limit on how much a person suing a doctor would be able to collect from the doctor's insurance. The argument is that placing limits on how much a person suing a doctor could collect would keep doctors in the state of Tennessee, rather than moving to the suburbs of the cities that border other states.

Since personal injury lawyers usually take a percentage of what their client gets in a jury's decision or in a settlement, placing limits on the amount a person suing a doctor could collect would also limit the amount of income a personal injury lawyers makes in a year. They also dispute the assertion that doctors are leaving the state because of malpractice insurance rates. This view has been supported by the Democrats.

So the agendas of the two sides are not really hidden at all. it, like so many other pieces of the legislation that goes through the legislative branch of a government, is all about money.

If doctors are really leaving the state, the legislation would be a major change in health care policy if it passes. Not just for the major population centers, but especially for the more rural areas in Tennessee that border other states. If a person lives in one of the more rural areas of the state, and doctors are going across the border to set up business, it means that a person in those rural areas of Tennessee would have to travel further to get to see their doctor and get treatment.

The flip side is that, if the legislation were to pass and become law, a person who was irreparably harmed by a doctor's malpractice may not be able to get all the money they deserve. Someone could have a life-altering problem due the doctor's malpractice, but the damages they would receive wouldn't make up for the cost of what the injured person has to deal with for the rest of their life.

What has happened in Tennessee is that the two sides are trying to strike a deal using Senate Bill 1347 sponsored by Senator Joe Haynes of Goodlettsville. The bill has become known as the Sorry Works! Pilot Program. (http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/SB1347.pdf)

The bill would allow some hospitals and nursing homes apologize for any mistakes made in the deliverance of care to a patient if they offer what is called a "fair settlement" to patients or their survivors. The hope is that it would lead to fewer medical malpractice lawsuits and smaller settlements or jury awards. (http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007704180403).

Another possible compromise would require three bills to pass the legislature and be signed by the Governor. (http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2007/3/6/medical_malpractice_compromise_on_the_horizon).The agreed changes would require lawyers to get a "certificate of good faith" that would certify that the lawsuit filed has good merit and impose penalties for frivolous litigation, relax regulations on doctors who must be asked if they've ever been sued, and make other minor changes.