Jewish World Review July 23, 2001 / 3 Menachem-Av, 5761

Dr. Michael A. Glueck

Michael A. Glueck
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

With the seriously ill Patients' Bill of Rights -- what you see and hear -- is not what you will get -- This is a patients' heads up alert! As the current TV commercial for Mercedes reminds us -- things are not always as they seem.

So it is with the much ballyhooed "Patients Bill of Rights" which if it were honestly labeled would be called more accurately, the "Patients' Bill of Fights," or better yet the "Trial Lawyers' Compensation" act (TLC for Attorneys). It has virtually nothing to do with patient care other than raising the insurance premiums for you and your family.

In the coming days, the U.S. House of Representatives will be asked to vote on to so-called Dingell-Ganske-Norwood Patients Bill of Rights. It's a proposal that will lead to unlimited lawsuits, will force small businesses to cut back or eliminate employee health coverage, and lead to higher health care costs overall. The only winners will be the personal injury lawyers -- and their crocodile wallets -- behind the lawsuits.

For starters, this legislation, while claiming to target managed care, would also subject employers that provide health care to being named as co-defendants in lawsuits. In other words, any employer that provides health coverage to employees through a managed care company would be at risk of a lawsuit. Worse, the legislation provides for virtually unlimited damages in these suits, meaning a business could be completely wiped out with just a single legal action. What employer would be crazy enough to offer such a benefit?

Congress should think about that very carefully. According to a 1999 survey of 600 large U.S. employers, many employers say they'd have to cut health benefits for fear they could be named as defendants in lawsuits against HMOs. That's large employers, but what about the small and mid-size businesses that provide millions of jobs for working Americans? These smaller businesses can't risk an astronomical damage award that would force them to close their doors. They would have no choice but to drop coverage for their employees.

The clear result is that America would then have even more people without health coverage. Is that really in the best interest of the nation? For example in California, it has been reported that the number of people without healthcare increases by 23,000 a month, a rate that vastly outpaces every other state?

Proponents of the Dingell-Ganske-Norwood Personal Injury Lawyers' Bill of Rights would argue that these employers could simply take the money saved by not providing health coverage and give it to their employees to purchase their own. But how far is that money really going to go when health plans will keep raising their premiums to keep pace with litigation?

The fact that litigation would drive up the cost of healthcare is no secret. The January 27, 2000, issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, discussing the litigation of cases against managed care stated, "Two outcomes are certain: millions of dollars will go toward attorneys fees, and these costs will need to be paid, at least in part, out of health insurance premiums." In actuality the increased costs will be in the billions.

The specter of higher health care premiums comes with its own set of negatives. According to a study published in the Journal of Health Economics, every ten percent increase in the cost of health insurance creates a three to four percent decrease in the number of people who choose to purchase coverage. Again, we end up with fewer Americans who have health coverage, but more personal injury lawyers who have more money.

To put a figure to the impact of the Dingell-Ganske-Norwood Personal Injury Lawyers' Bill of Rights, the Employment Policy Foundation recently release a study that paints a disturbing picture. According to the study, this kind of legislation could lead to 56,000 new lawsuits per year, $16 billion in higher health care costs, and 9 million more Americans without health coverage.

Maryann Maloney, is Executive Director of Orange County Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (OCCALA), a nonprofit, grassroots public education organization. Maloney notes, "The objective of the civil justice system is to provide justice -- not pursue greed. Under this deceptive Bill we all pay and we all lose -- except for the trial lawyers. What America needs is more and better healthcare, not more lawsuits."

The Dingell-Ganske-Norwood proposal will do nothing to improve the quality of healthcare and in fact will make access to quality care more difficult for more people. Surely Congress should recognize that Dingell-Norwood is not the answer. If better healthcare is truly the objective, and not bigger paychecks for personal injury lawyers, then we can find a solution that addresses the real problem without hurting small and large businesses, raising the cost of health care, and leaving more Americans uninsured without care or medications.

In the case of the seriously ill Patients' Bill of Rights -- what you see and hear -- is not what you will get.

JWR contributor Michael Arnold Glueck is a Newport Beach, Calif.-based physician who writes extensively on medical and legal policy reform issues. A Harvard trained diagnostic radiologist his articles appear on newservices, newspapers, newsletters, magazines and journals nationally and internationally. Comment by by clicking here.

© 2001, Michael Arnold Glueck