Anna Eshoo: “for 4 years we've been debating what to do about the malpractice premium crisis. We clearly have a problem but what's…”

“for 4 years we've been debating what to do about the malpractice premium crisis. We clearly have a problem but what's not so clear is what the solution should be. I'm a Californian, and in my State, we have a law titled the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, MICRA, that has been mentioned many times on the floor. This law was passed by a Democratic legislature and signed by a Democratic governor in 1975. It's been on the books ever since, without a single change. MICRA has contributed to stabilizing premiums in California, but without other reforms, we would still be facing the same skyrocketing increases as other States. The Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare, HEALTH, Act of 2005 has been described as a Federal version of MICRA. I respectfully dispute this assertion. The HEALTH Act places a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages for suits against physicians, insurers, HMOs and nursing homes as well as drug and medical device manufacturers. MICRA limits that cap solely to physicians. The Health Act also places a cap on punitive damages. MICRA does not. One of the reasons MICRA has worked is because it's prescribed in its scope. If we're to get to the heart of exorbitant medical malpractice insurance, we have to focus our efforts on those who truly need our help. I'm concerned that extending these provisions to those outside of the physician community may have a harmful effect on patient care and on our legal system.…”