Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003
2003 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB–GYN with over 30 years in private practice, I understand
better than perhaps any other member
of Congress the burden imposed on both
medical practitioners and patients by excessive
malpractice judgments and the corresponding
explosion in malpractice insurance
premiums. Malpractice insurance has skyrocketed
to the point where doctors are unable
to practice in some areas or see certain types
of patients because they cannot afford the insurance
premiums. This crisis has particularly
hit my area of practice, leaving some pregnant
women unable to find a qualified obstetrician
in their city. Therefore, I am pleased to see
Congress address this problem.
2003 Ron Paul 34:2
However this bill raises several questions of constitutionality, as well as whether it treats
those victimized by large corporations and
medical devices fairly. In addition, it places de
facto price controls on the amounts injured
parties can receive in a lawsuit and rewrites
every contingency fee contract in the country.
Yet, among all the new assumptions of federal
power, this bill does nothing to address the
power of insurance companies over the medical
profession. Thus, even if the reforms of
H.R. 5 become law, there will be nothing to
stop the insurance companies from continuing
to charge exorbitant rates.
2003 Ron Paul 34:3
Of course, I am not suggesting Congress place price controls on the insurance industry.
Instead, Congress should reexamine those
federal laws such as ERISA and the HMO Act
of 1973, which have allowed insurers to
achieve such a prominent role in the medical
profession. As I will detail below, Congress
should also take steps to encourage contractual
means of resolving malpractice disputes.
Such an approach may not be beneficial to
the insurance companies or the trial lawyers,
buy will certainly benefit the patients and physicians,
which both sides in this debate claim
to represent.
2003 Ron Paul 34:4
H.R. 5 does contain some positive elements. For example, the language limiting joint
and several liabilities to the percentage of
damage someone actually caused, is a reform
I have long championed. However, Mr. Speaker,
H.R. 5 exceeds Congress constitutional
authority by preempting state law. Congressional
dissatisfaction with the malpractice laws
in some states provides no justification for
Congress to impose uniform standards on all
50 states. The 10th amendment does not authorize
federal action in areas otherwise reserved
to the states simply because some
members of Congress are unhappy with the
way the states have handled the problem.
Ironically, H.R. 5 actually increases the risk of
frivolous litigation in some states by lengthening
the statue of limitations and changing
the definition of comparative negligence!
2003 Ron Paul 34:5
I am also disturbed by the language that limits liability for those harmed by FDA-approved
products. This language, in effect, establishes
FDA approval as the gold standard
for measuring the safety and soundness of
medical devices. However, if FDA approval
guaranteed safety, then the FDA would not
regularly issue recalls of approved products
later found to endanger human health and/or
safety.
2003 Ron Paul 34:6
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 also punishes victims of government mandates by limiting the ability
of those who have suffered adverse reactions
from vaccines to collect damages. Many of
those affected by these provisions are children
forced by federal mandates to receive vaccines.
Oftentimes, parents reluctantly submit
to these mandates in order to ensure their
children can attend public school. H.R. 5 rubs
salt in the wounds of those parents whose
children may have been harmed by government
policies forcing children to receive unsafe
vaccines.
2003 Ron Paul 34:7
Rather than further expanding unconstitutional mandates and harming those with a legitimate
claim to collect compensation, Congress
should be looking for ways to encourage
physicians and patients to resolve questions of
liability via private, binding contracts. The root
cause of the malpractice crisis (and all of the
problems with the health care system) is the
shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship
as a contractual one to viewing it as
one governed by regulations imposed by insurance
company functionaries, politicians,
government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers.
There is no reason why questions of the assessment
of liability and compensation cannot
be determined by a private contractual agreement
between physicians and patients.
2003 Ron Paul 34:8
I have introduced the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249). H.R. 1249
provides tax incentives to individuals who
agree to purchase malpractice insurance,
which will automatically provide coverage for
any injuries sustained in treatment. This will
insure that those harmed by spiraling medical
errors receive timely and full compensation.
My plan spares both patients and doctors the
costs of a lengthy, drawn-out trial and respects
Congress constitutional limitations.
2003 Ron Paul 34:9
Congress could also help physicians lower insurance rates by passing legislation, such as
my Quality Health Care Coalition Act (H.R.
1247), that removes the antitrust restrictions
preventing physicians from forming professional
organizations for the purpose of negotiating
contracts with insurance companies and
HMOs. These laws give insurance companies
and HMOs, who are often protected from excessive
malpractice claims by ERISA, the ability
to force doctors to sign contracts exposing
them to excessive insurance premiums and
limiting their exercise of professional judgment.
The lack of a level playing field also enables
insurance companies to raise premiums
at will. In fact, it seems odd that malpractice
premiums have skyrocketed at a time when insurance
companies need to find other sources
of revenue to compensate for their losses in
the stock market.
2003 Ron Paul 34:10
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts of the sponsors of H.R. 5 to address
the crisis in health care caused by excessive
malpractice litigation and insurance
premiums, I cannot support this bill. H.R. 5 exceeds
Congress constitutional limitations and
denies full compensation to those harmed by
the unintentional effects of federal vaccine
mandates. Instead of furthering unconstitutional
authority, my colleagues should focus
on addressing the root causes of the malpractice
crisis by supporting efforts to restore
the primacy of contract to the doctor-patient
relationships.
Note:
Chapter 39, which is dated March 27, 2003, is basically the same as Chapter 34, which was not posted in Ron Pauls Congressional website, but appeared in Congressional Record of March 12, 2003, dated March 12, 2003.