Should Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Involving Federally Subsidized Care be Reformed? (H.R. 1215)

What is H.R. 1215?

(Updated October 31, 2019)

This bill would reform medical malpractice lawsuits where coverage for the care was provided or subsidized by the federal government, such as through a subsidy or tax benefit. It wouldn’t preempt certain state laws, or federal vaccine injury laws and rules.

The statute of limitations would be three years after the injury or one year after the claimant discovers the injury, whichever occurs first. For a minor, the statute of limitations would be three years after the injury except for minors under age six, in which case it’d be three years after the injury, one year after discovery of the injury, or the minor’s eighth birthday — whichever occurs later. These limitations could be “tolled” — basically pausing or delaying the statute of limitations — under certain circumstances.

Noneconomic damages — paid out for things like permanent disability or physical pain and suffering as opposed to medical bills (which are economic damages) — would be capped at $250,000. Juries couldn’t be informed of this limitation. Parties would be liable for the amount of damages that are directly proportional to their responsibility. These provisions don’t preempt state laws that specify a particular amount of monetary damages. Courts would be required to supervise the payment of damages and could restrict attorney contingency fees, which would be limited by the bill.

Evidence concerning insurance payments and related benefits may be introduced in lawsuits involving injury or wrongful death. Insurance providers would be restricted from recovering any amount from the claimant in such a lawsuit. These provisions don’t apply if Medicare is a secondary payer or there is third party liability for Medicaid services.

A healthcare provider who prescribes or dispenses prescriptions a medical product approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may not be party to a product liability lawsuit or a class action lawsuit regarding the medical product.

Argument in favor

This bill would help bring down the cost of healthcare by reforming malpractice lawsuits related to care that was provided or subsidized by the federal government, which will lead to fewer unnecessary tests.

Argument opposed

This bill would make it harder for people who’ve been wronged by an instance of medical malpractice to have their day in court and receive compensation. This will lead to more misconduct in the future.

Impact

Claimants in medical malpractice suits involving federally provided or subsidized healthcare; healthcare providers; courts; and the federal government.

Cost of H.R. 1215

The CBO estimates that enacting this bill would reduce deficits by almost $50 billion over the 2017-2027 period.

Additional Info

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Steve King (R-IA) introduced this bill to reform medical malpractice lawsuits involving federally subsidized healthcare:

“Nationwide, physicians estimate that 35 percent of diagnostic tests they ordered were to avoid lawsuits, as were 19 percent of hospitalizations, 14 percent of prescriptions, and eight percent of surgeries. All told it adds up to $650 billion in unnecessary care every year… A more recent study, published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology studied the effects of tort reform on just radiographic tests alone and found that there were 2.4 to 2.7 million fewer radiographic tests annually attributed to tort reforms... Just imagine what savings would occur if such reforms were attached to all federal healthcare programs as this bill would do.”

The Trump administration released a statement in support of this bill, saying that these policies would "generate savings" for patients and the federal government by reducing unnecessary medical services performed by doctors afraid of getting sued. 

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee opposed this bill in its committee report, saying that it undermines the goals of adequate and affordable health insurance coverage for all Americans by heightening the risks of harm to patients and consumers of medical products:

“It does this by significantly undermining their ability to pursue a case in court and by imposing various restrictions on victims’ ability to be fully compensated for their injuries, making it harder to hold wrongdoers accountable and to deter future misconduct. Additionally, the bill represents a deep intrusion into state sovereignty as state legislatures and state courts traditionally set the rules governing tort liability.”

This legislation was passed by the House Judiciary Committee on a 18-17 vote, and has the support of three Republican cosponsors in the House

Media:

• Sponsoring Rep. Steve King (R-IA) Press Release
  
• White House Statement of Policy
• CBO Cost Estimate
  
• Medscape
  
• STAT
  
• American Hospital Association (In Favor)
  
• Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (Context)