After heated debate, the House on September 26 approved, 217-203, a bill (H.R. 4600) that would limit medical malpractice awards. Sponsored by Rep. James Greenwood (R-PA), the legislation would cap non-economic damages in health care lawsuits at $250,000. Under the measure, juries would not be informed of the limit. If a jury award were to exceed the $250,000 limit, the judgment would be reduced.
Economic damages would not be capped; however, punitive damages would be limited to two times the amount of economic damages, or $250,000, whichever is greater. Under the bill, punitive damages could not be assessed to the manufacturer or distributor of a medical product if the product was approved or cleared by the Food and Drug Administration. Health care providers who prescribed such a product or device could not be named in a lawsuit against the manufacturer or distributor. Additionally, manufacturers or sellers of a drug could not be held liable for punitive damages related to the adequacy of the packaging or labeling if the packaging or labeling complied with regulations. Attorneys’ fees also would be limited under the legislation.
Bill supporters argued that the measure was necessary to address a growing health care crisis: skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums that are forcing health care providers to cease providing certain services, such as obstetrics.
Opponents countered that the legislation would restrict the right of injured patients to be compensated and by setting an arbitrary limit for damages would disproportionately and adversely impact low-income individuals and families.
Arguing in support of the bill, Rep. Nancy Johson (R-CT) said, “Our nation is galloping toward a health care crisis of dimensions we have never faced before, a crisis of cost and a crisis of access. There are whole states in America where a woman cannot find an obstetrician who will take a high-risk pregnancy.”
Rep. Stephen Kirk (R-IL) agreed, “Without this bill, we will continue to see greater distances for deliveries, fewer screening services, and less training for women’s health and health care.”
“Hospitals are not going to stay open any longer because of this bill. People are not going to get any better health care because of this bill,” argued Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH). “It is taking away the ability of people who are injured to have the ability to bring their claim in court.”
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) added, “Under common law, non-economic damages would not be capped, but when we cap them at $250,000, victims who do not work outside the home like women, children, and others with very low economic damages will not be able to be adequately compensated.”
While bill supporters argued that the increase in insurance premiums was due to excess health care litigation, opponents argued that insurance companies played an important role.
“Lawsuits account for the same minuscule fraction of health care costs as they always have,” stated Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), adding, “Studies have shown the average jury award has not changed at all in the last decade, so why the sudden crisis? Because the market is in a tailspin and the insurance companies need to recoup their losses because they kept the rates too low during the good years.”
Pointing to the success of similar legislation enacted in California nearly 30 years ago, Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) said, “Since that time, insurance premiums in the rest of the country have increased over 500 percent, while California’s has [sic] only risen 167 percent.” He continued, “By placing modest limits on unreasonable awards for economic damages, an estimated $60 billion to $108 billion…could be saved in health care costs each year. Reclaiming this money would lower premiums for doctors and patients, allowing millions of Americans the opportunity to obtain affordable health insurance.”
