If somehow you’ve escaped the debate over medical malpractice tort reform, be warned: You won’t escape the deluge of nasty political ads that may be heading your way.
They’ll portray greed and recklessness: Lawyers who take advantage of injured patients, incompetent doctors protected by their brethren, insurance companies unwilling to prove their need for higher malpractice rates. All this will be in support of dueling initiatives that will appear on the November ballot if the Legislature, and Gov. Christine Gregoire, fail to exercise leadership.
Initiative 330, crafted by doctors, would cap damages for pain and suffering in malpractice cases at $350,000 and limit attorney fees. Initiative 336, put forth by patient advocates and trial lawyers, attempts to crack down on bad doctors and limit insurance companies’ ability to raise malpractice rates.
Lawmakers can enact either or both, do nothing and let them go to the ballot, or propose an alternative that would appear on the ballot with them.
Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, in testimony to a Senate committee this month, called both initiatives “fundamentally flawed.” He’s right, because both represent the one-sided, hardened positions of their proponents. There are, however, aspects of both that would bring us closer to what everyone wants: enhanced patient safety, accountability that’s meaningful and fair, and stable insurance rates that won’t drive good doctors out of our state.
That’s where leadership comes in. The shouting match has gone far enough. Gov. Gregoire and legislative leaders must insists that all sides – providers, patients, attorneys and insurers – sit down and begin forging a workable compromise.
To those who think the sides are too dug in to compromise, consider:
* Many doctors might welcome I-336’s plan to have the insurance commissioner monitor claims activity and make that information public. Currently, secret settlements don’t allow the medical community to learn from its own mistakes, which isn’t good for patients or care providers.
* Perhaps one of the reasons patients and lawyers oppose caps on non-economic damages so strongly is that the caps are unrealistically low ($350,000 in I-330). How about making the caps higher, and adjusting the cap for inflation each year? Or allowing a judge to exceed the cap in extreme cases?
Malpractice insurance reform can’t succeed without compromise, which is the only way to begin replacing suspicion with trust. Nor should such a complex issue be decided by political ads. The governor and legislative leaders must stand up to the special interests now and get them to sit down together to forge a new plan. It can succeed, and it could become the blueprint for mending fences on other seemingly intractable problems.
Leaders need to solve these issues in Olympia, not over the airwaves.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.