|
 |
 |
|
House panel OKs malpractice bill
The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday passed new limits on lawsuits against doctors after defeating Democratic amendments to preserve more lenient state laws.
The bill passed 30-20 after a daylong markup and votes on a slew of amendments. It would cap non-economic damages in malpractice cases at $250,000 and set other restrictions on lawsuits against doctors.
The bill isn't expected to gain traction in the Senate. Although President Obama has said he's open to working with Republicans on tort reform, he has consistently opposed caps on damages.
The committee defeated Democratic amendments that would have added a clause to the bill saying it does not preempt state malpractice laws, prompting a back-and-forth in which both sides accused the other of being fair-weather advocates for states' rights.
"This preempts probably every (law) but California's and Texas' medical liability laws, so it is very clear that it violates sates' rights," Terry said.
According to the American Association for Justice, which represents trial attorneys, four states have constitutional bans on capping jury awards. Another six state supreme courts have struck down laws that imposed a cap on damages.
Doctors strongly support the proposal. The American Medical Association has said capping malpractice awards will reduce overall healthcare spending by cutting down on unnecessary procedures that doctors perform just to avoid being sued. The Congressional Budget Office said the Energy and Commerce bill would save the federal government roughly $54 million over 10 years.
In addition to offering anti-preemption amendments on damages, Democrats tried unsuccessfully to strip from the bill a section that would preempt tort suits involving drugs and medical devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that injured consumers can sue drug companies and some device makers. The malpractice bill would impose limits on those suits, shielding manufacturers from some suits as long as their products complied with FDA regulations.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) argued that product liability is a separate issue and said it was "irresponsible and dangerous to squeak these very different cases into the scope of this bill."
