SALT LAKE CITY -- Despite a spirited and occasionally contentious debate, the House easily passed a bill that makes major changes to how hospitals and doctors can be sued for malpractice.
"There is simply no need for this bill," said Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City. The trial attorney cited a recent speech at the White House by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who said lawsuits only account for one-fifth of 1 percent of health care costs.
Kaiser Foundation research shows that, over the past 20 years, the number of paid malpractice claims has been cut in half and the amount paid in claims was cut in half between 2003 and 2008.
Now, King said, doctors will flock to Utah because of the bill, but they won't be the kind of doctors the state wants.
"I honestly believe that this bill might as well be labeled the attract-a-hack bill," he said.
"Come to Utah. We're going to make sure you're less likely to be accountable for your lousy practices as a physician than just about any other state."
That drew fire from bill sponsor Rep. Brad Last, R-St. George, who has a home health care business and said he's facing a malpractice lawsuit.
"I think the guy who's pursuing me is a hack," Last said. "If we're going to talk about attract-a-hack, it goes both ways."
The bill, largely considered a consensus bill between medical professionals and lawyers, passed 67-6. It now goes back to the Senate because it was amended in the House after passing in the Senate.
The bill would:
* Set a cap for noneconomic damages at $450,000.
* Require an affidavit of merit from a health care professional to proceed with an action if a pre-litigation panel makes a finding of nonmeritorious.
* Limit the liability of a health care provider, in certain circumstances, for the acts or omissions of an ostensible agent.
Comments