House passes medical malpractice bill

If the bill were to become law, it would implement other limits, including on attorney fees and implement a three-year statute of limitations. It would apply to healthcare lawsuits that involve coverage provided through a federal program such as Medicare or Medicaid or to coverage that is partly paid for by a government subsidy or tax benefit.

Supporters of the legislation said it would limit unnecessary medical tests and procedures and reduce healthcare costs, but critics said it could inappropriately limit the compensation of plaintiffs who file a healthcare lawsuit and increase medical errors. A Congressional Budget Office score of the bill projected that it would reduce deficits by $50 billion by 2027 by lowering premiums for medical liability insurance and by reducing the use of healthcare services prescribed by providers when faced with less pressure from potential malpractice suits.

Republicans have said for months that they are working on three phases to make changes to the healthcare system by repealing and replacing parts of Obamacare. One of the phases involves the reconciliation bill being negotiated in the Senate, another involves administrative changes to rules that the Department of Health and Human Services can make, and the third phase involves legislation such as the bill that passed Wednesday. Other pieces of legislation passed in the House as part of the third phase include a bill that would eliminate antitrust protection for insurers and another that would allow small businesses to pool together to provide coverage to employees.

During floor debate, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, defended the bill as a necessary move for reining in healthcare spending, and said spending was growing partly because doctors conduct unnecessary tests out of fear that a patient will sue them. He said the bill would apply to civil cases, not criminal ones such as those in which a patient sues a doctor for sexual assault.

Democrats said the bill would unfairly limit a patient’s ability to collect appropriate damages from medical malpractice and would shield negligent doctors from liability. They argued the bill was intended to give a tax break to health insurance companies.

“Additional tests may frankly be just good medicine,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said on the House floor.

On Tuesday, 80 organizations sent a letter to House leaders urging them to oppose the bill.

“Even if [the bill] applied only to doctors and hospitals, recent studies clearly establish that its provisions would lead to more deaths and injuries, and increased healthcare costs due to a ‘broad relaxation of care,'” they wrote. “Add to this nursing home and pharmaceutical industry liability limitations, significantly weakening incentives for these industries to act safely, and untold numbers of additional death, injuries and costs are inevitable and unacceptable.”

The White House’s senior advisers have recommended that President Trump sign the bill into law, and it was included as a potential area of reform in Trump’s budget request.

“State medical liability rules often allow for unlimited non-economic damages,” the White House said in its statement of administration policy. “This encourages providers to practice defensive medicine, increases the cost of healthcare, and imposes a significant burden on healthcare providers.”