WOIFM

Remember Al Gore droning about

Remember Al Gore droning about the Dingell-Norwood bill in last fall's debates? The President scored a huge legislative victory this week by bringing Charlie Norwood, one of that bill's sponsors, to a compromise on the Patient's Bill of Rights. The House of Representatives backed the compromise version, breaking last week's logjam.

Since both parties agreed on virtually 90% of the proposed protections, the compromise bill has only a few significant differences even from the proposals backed by liberal expansionsists like Senator Kennedy. Unlike the Democrats' proposal, the compromise version isn't an unlimited bonanza for trial lawyers - c'mon, did you really think patients would ever see a dime from lawsuits? - it's got an upper limit of one-and-a-half million dollars on non-ecomonic damages, with another possible $1.5 million for punitive damages.

"Non-economic" is an important word. That means there's no cap on economic damages, like medical bills, lost wages, and so on. The $1.5 milion cap limits only intangible claims like "pain and suffering," with another possible $1.5 million for punitive damages. The article in the local rag conveniently obscures that fact, but it's significant, and here's why.

I used to work for a firm that defended medical malpractice cases. Every once in a while, we'd get a wrongful death case. Even in the wildest dreams of the plaintiff's lawyers, those claims never sought more than two million, usually closer to one million, including economic and non-economic damages. A million, rarely two, for the ultimate bad ending. Most of that million or two would come from economic damages - lost income from a supporting spouse, medical bills incurred trying to save the patient, and so on. So the limit on non-ecomonic damages proposed in this compromise bill should be more than ample for just about every case where an HMO makes a serious mistake.

But that's not good enough for the Democrats. Nowrwood asked them:

Isn't this what we have been fighting for all these years? What are you holding out for?

They are holding out for their trial-lawyer friends to have unlimited power to threaten deep-pocketed insurance comapnies. Mind you, if the Democrats have their way, I'll make a lot more money over the next several years, because when these lawsuits mushroom - like they did for nursing homes, but exponentially worse - any lawyer who can read a medical record will eventually get a piece.

Notwithstanding the Democrats' efforts to line my pockets, I think the cap is a good idea - one that should be extended to doctors as well.