Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Measure 35 foes: 'Look at Texas'
Thursday, October 28, 2004 | 1 comment(s)
PORTLAND (AP) - Opponents of a measure that would limit jury awards for medical malpractice want voters to consider Texas before casting their ballots.
Texans last year approved a $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases, half the limit proposed by Measure 35.
Six weeks after the election, The Medical Protective Co., the nation's largest medical malpractice insurer, asked Texas regulators to approve a 19 percent premium increase, saying the cap would have little effect on the company's losses from lawsuits.
"These companies are unwilling to pass on the savings to doctors. They want to keep the profits for themselves," said Doug Heller, a spokesman for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a California-based group.
But Kelly Stoner, spokeswoman for the Measure 35 campaign, said voters should focus on what has happened in Oregon. Malpractice premiums fell when Oregon imposed a limit in 1987 and began climbing after the Oregon Supreme Court threw out the limit as unconstitutional in 1999, Stoner said.
Jim Hurley, spokesman for the Texas insurance commissioners, said the state denied The Medical Protective Co.'s premium increase request, as well as others, saying the companies hadn't sufficiently taken the damage limit into account. Regulators approved a 10-percent boost for the company. Other companies have reduced or held premiums steady, he said.
"In only one year, rates have stabilized, and for many doctors, they have dropped," Hurley said.
But the fact that a big insurer tried to discount the effect of the limit, saying they expected it to reduce lawsuit losses by 1 percent, hands ammunition to Measure 35 opponents. They argue the insurance industry can't be trusted when it says the measure will bring down rates.
"We believe these are lies, out-and-out lies," said Jason Reynolds, executive director of the Oregon Consumer League.
When seeking the 19-percent increase, the Medical Protective Co. said juries and judges might be more sympathetic to victims because their potential damages were limited, and plaintiff's lawyers might find ways to shift damages to economic ones, such as medical costs and lost wages.
Texans last year approved a $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases, half the limit proposed by Measure 35.
Six weeks after the election, The Medical Protective Co., the nation's largest medical malpractice insurer, asked Texas regulators to approve a 19 percent premium increase, saying the cap would have little effect on the company's losses from lawsuits.
"These companies are unwilling to pass on the savings to doctors. They want to keep the profits for themselves," said Doug Heller, a spokesman for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a California-based group.
But Kelly Stoner, spokeswoman for the Measure 35 campaign, said voters should focus on what has happened in Oregon. Malpractice premiums fell when Oregon imposed a limit in 1987 and began climbing after the Oregon Supreme Court threw out the limit as unconstitutional in 1999, Stoner said.
Jim Hurley, spokesman for the Texas insurance commissioners, said the state denied The Medical Protective Co.'s premium increase request, as well as others, saying the companies hadn't sufficiently taken the damage limit into account. Regulators approved a 10-percent boost for the company. Other companies have reduced or held premiums steady, he said.
"In only one year, rates have stabilized, and for many doctors, they have dropped," Hurley said.
But the fact that a big insurer tried to discount the effect of the limit, saying they expected it to reduce lawsuit losses by 1 percent, hands ammunition to Measure 35 opponents. They argue the insurance industry can't be trusted when it says the measure will bring down rates.
"We believe these are lies, out-and-out lies," said Jason Reynolds, executive director of the Oregon Consumer League.
When seeking the 19-percent increase, the Medical Protective Co. said juries and judges might be more sympathetic to victims because their potential damages were limited, and plaintiff's lawyers might find ways to shift damages to economic ones, such as medical costs and lost wages.
The comments below are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines
Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Not already registered?
The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines