Greg Ganske: “In talking about other legislation on Capitol Hill, the bill that passed a couple of weeks ago says that the reduction…”

“In talking about other legislation on Capitol Hill, the bill that passed a couple of weeks ago says that the reduction in the award would be determined in a pretrial proceeding and that any evidence regarding this reduction would be inadmissible in a trial between the injured patient and the HMO. Well, what does that mean? Well, let us say that one is hit by a drunk driver while crossing the street and one's HMO subsequently refuses to pay for necessary physical therapy even though these are covered services under one's employer plan. So one files two separate lawsuits, one against the drunk driver in the State court and the other against the HMO in the Federal court because the HMO is not treating one fairly. Let us say the civil case against the drunk driver is delayed because criminal charges are prevailing against him. If the Federal case, the one against the HMO, proceeds to trial under the bill that passed a couple of weeks ago, the Federal judge would have to guess how much a State jury would award one, and the Federal judge would have no way of knowing what one actually could collect. This collateral source damages rule would leave patients uncompensated for very real injuries.”