Talk Back! 
Most Read stories this week
Most Emailed stories this week
Patients are ignored in reform equation
The hope for some sort of meaningful medical malpractice reform by the Illinois General Assembly seems to be dwindling fast.
Although one should never say never when speaking of Illinois politics, it appears the three sides involved in the debates - lawyers, insurance companies and doctors and hospitals - are unwilling to do much more than blame the other folks for the problem.
That became apparent recently during a hearing on Senate Bill 1979. This bill, drafted by Sen. Ira Silverstein, D-Chicago, and Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, was designed to be the basis for future negotiations.
But the question after the hearing was whether there was any hope for future negotiations. The hearing indicated that no one involved in the legislation is willing to compromise.
"This bill, as amended, is anti-consumer, anti-patient and in fact, it's anti-doctor, because all it does is protect insurance companies," said Keith Hebeisen, president-elect of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. He went on to say the bill doesn't include insurance reforms such as public hearings on rate increases and disclosure of actuarial data.
But that didn't sit well with ISMIE Mutual, a physician-owned insurance company aligned with the Illinois State Medical Society.
"Just simply piling on more regulation will deter insurers from coming into Illinois," said James Tierney, ISMIE's vice president of legislative affairs.
The trial lawyers also oppose a portion of the bill that offers full asset protection for doctors. That part of the legislation would effectively limit the amount a patient could collect to ISMIE's $1 million policy.
One issue that's not on the table, but should be, is a cap on pain and suffering awards. This reform has been enacted in other states.
But Silverstein has said "caps are off the table."
Sen. Frank Watson, R-Greenville, said caps should be part of the package, and it's "unfair to arbitrarily take them off."
The state Supreme Court has previously struck down cap limits on two occasions, although Watson argues that the court has changed since those decisions.
It's hard to understand why insurance companies or doctors and hospitals would agree to reforms that basically give the trial lawyers a free pass. At the same time, insurance companies and the health care industry have to be willing to compromise.
Seemingly forgotten in all the negotiations are the folks paying the bills: the patients. It's the patients who have to search harder for doctors in specialized areas, and it's the patients who end up paying more for medical care because of higher insurance bills. Yet none of the interest groups involved in this debate spend much time talking about those folks. Instead, they spend their time worrying about protecting their own turf.
And that means it's likely nothing will be accomplished.
Previous Page 
Subscribe 
Email Alerts 
Print this story 
Email this story
del.icio.us
digg
newsvine
facebook