Fw: Response from Rep. Charlie Dent-Pa resident

[Guest guest]

Mail

Responding to your message

Dear ,

Thank you for contacting me regarding HR 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low

Cost, Timely Heathcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005. I appreciate the time you have

taken to share your views with me on this important matter.

On 28 July 2005, I voted for this legislation. It subsequently passed the House

and should be taken up by the Senate when that body returns from its August

recess.

There are five reasons that I voted for the Act. These are described below:

First, this bill addresses one of the central issues in health care today: the

way in which out-of-control legal judgments are driving up health care costs.

This bill sets caps on punitive and non-economic damages that result from

malpractice litigation. This is important because, as the Congressional Budget

Office has noted, " certain tort limitations, primarily caps on awards and rules

governing offsets from collateral-source benefits, effectively reduce average

premiums for medical malpractice insurance. " The CBO estimates that, under this

Act, " medical malpractice insurance premiums would be an average of 25 to 30 per

cent below what they would be under current law. "

High malpractice premiums are creating serious doctor recruitment and retention

problems in this country, especially in so-called " high risk " disciplines such

as orthopedics, neurosurgery, emergency medicine, and obstetrics. The American

College of Emergency Physicians surveyed 1,427 emergency department medical

directors between April 2004 and August 2004 and found that 57% of rural

hospitals and 71% of urban hospitals had problems with inadequate on-call

specialist coverage.

This medical liability crisis has had serious consequences for the residents of

the 15th Congressional District. St. Luke's Hospital's medical liability

premiums have increased by more than $4 million in just two years. Similarly,

Lehigh Valley Hospital, a three hospital network and the largest employer in my

District, experienced a five-fold increase in its liability costs over the past

several years. These increases far outpace the rate of inflation and are making

it increasingly difficult for these fine institutions to provide the services

that their patients need. And local institutions are starting to have trouble

retaining their physicians, many of whom are paying $50,000 per year and more

for malpractice insurance: A few years ago, Easton Hospital lost all of its

neurosurgeons to other states.

Second, nothing about this bill prevents a litigant from seeking his or her day

in court. The legislation contains no cap on economic damages (i.e. medical

bills and lost wages) and apportions liability based on the degree of negligence

exhibited by the parties. In California, which was the model for HR 5,

plaintiffs with legitimate liability issues and extensive damage claims still

enjoy large recoveries-even though the Government Accountability Office (GAO)

has determined that California has controlled medical professional liability

costs much better than has my home state, Pennsylvania. In fact, in Pennsylvania

the medical liability crisis is so acute that the legislature has appropriated

hundreds of millions of dollars to assist physicians and hospitals with rapidly

rising medical liability premiums. That's like placing a " band aid " on a gaping

wound. Structural reform is what is needed here; taxpayers bailouts- " band aids, "

if you will-don't solve the underlying problem.

Third, this bill insures that prescription drug companies adhere to Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) standards when manufacturing and marketing a new drug.

Companies that knowingly withhold or misrepresent material information about

their pharmaceutical products during the FDA approval process may be hit with

punitive (punishment) damages under this bill if their product is later

determined to have hurt someone. Furthermore, nothing about this legislation

affects anyone's right to make a claim under the Vaccine Injury Compensation

Program.

Fourth, the HEALTH Act is important in that it will help reduce incidents of

actual medical malpractice in hospitals and physicians' offices. This is

because, in today's world, the current threat of potentially infinite liability

prevents doctors from discussing medical errors and from looking for ways to

improve the delivery of health care. The HEALTH act encourages this sharing of

information.

Finally, this Act allows an injured litigant to keep a higher percentage of the

compensation rightfully awarded him by a judge or jury. Trial lawyers frequently

charge a fee of one-third (and, in some cases, up to 40%) of the value of the

judgment. If the judgment is in the millions of dollars, the lawyer's percentage

remains the same, and counsel receives his/her percentage " off the top. " The

HEALTH Act provides for a sliding scale of fees, which results in the trial

attorney getting a lower percentage as the awards increase into the six- and

seven-figure ranges. While it provides a slightly smaller windfall for the

lawyer, it means more money for the patients that juries have determined are the

most catastrophically injured.

Thank you again for writing to me on the HEALTH Act of 2005. Please do not

hesitate to contact me with any additional comments or questions on this or any

other federal issue.

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

W. Dent

Member of Congress