Special interests clash over medical malpractice reform

25
Feb

Special interests clash over medical malpractice reform

State Sen. Butch Miller, R-Gainesville, is co-sponsoring a bill aimed at reforming the state’s medical malpractice system and lowering health care costs. His picture was on a mailer sent to many Hall County homes in January, asking residents to thank him for his support of the bill.

The mysterious source of the mailer is just one aspect in the fight over the Patients’ Compensation Act (SB 141), which has turned out groups with vested interests on both sides of the issue, each clamoring to defeat or pass the bill as millions of dollars are at stake.

Proponents are touting the bill as a countermeasure to the Affordable Care Act, saying it will lower premiums, co-pays and deductibles by eliminating incentives for doctors to order unnecessary and redundant medical procedures and tests.

The state’s tort system responsible for malpractice claims would be replaced with an administrative model, with claims handled by an independent review board.

“As for the direct mail piece, I have no clue as to the source or the motive of the anonymous sender,” Miller told The Times. “It’s also interesting to note that the bill has not been voted out of (the Rules) Committee nor passed on the Senate floor; not to mention it also needs to pass the same process in the House and be signed by the governor. As of now, it’s a moot point.”

While the legislation has not gained traction this year, the scope of its content has advocates and opponents squaring off about its intent.

“We believe there is such an epidemic of defensive medicine being practiced that it’s costing us billions of dollars,” said state Sen. Brandon Beach, R-Alpharetta, the bill’s chief proponent in the General Assembly. “If doctors don’t believe they’re going to be sued for these jackpot justice lawsuits, then they would reduce the tests they are running, and consequently reduce our health care costs.”

via Special interests clash over medical malpractice reform.

Comments ( 0 )