Home
>
On The Record > House Bill Sparks Tenth Amendment Debate
House Bill Sparks Tenth Amendment Debate
By: Lily Moallem on March 1, 2011
The Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives approved a medical malpractice reform bill last week, which would put a three-year statute of limitations on medical lawsuits, cap non-economic damages at $250,000, and limit punitive damages to $250,000 or twice the economic damages, whichever is greater. The Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act would apply these new restrictions to lawsuits in both federal and state courts. The Committee approved the bill in an 18-15 party-line vote after rejecting a number of amendments proposed by Democrat Committee members.
The bill’s sponsor, Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia (R), cites the Commerce Clause as the congressional authority under which the federal government has the power to enact HEALTH. Proponents of the bill refer to the deleterious effects of the health care liability system on interstate commerce. They claim the system contributes to the “high costs of health care and premiums for heath care liability insurance purchased by health care system providers across the United States. Opponents of HEALTH question whether the federal government has the authority under the Commerce Clause to override state law.
More... »
Two Republican committee members from Texas expressed this very concern at a Committee markup session. Though not opposed to tort reform, Representatives Ted Poe and Louie Gohmert wanted to guarantee the federal law would not preempt existing law in Texas. In a statement made after the markup session, Representative Poe explained that while he supports malpractice reform, he believes
Online Dating it is the prerogative of individual states under the 10th Amendment to set their own liability caps. Despite their concerns, both Representatives voted to send the bill to the full House.
Democrats have criticized their Republican adult webcams counterparts for wavering on their message about health care reform. Many Republicans have mounted opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on the basis that the legislation violates state sovereignty, specifically the right of states to dictate the nature of their own health care programs. Yet Republican Committee members were quick to approve federal legislation that could preempt existing state medical malpractice laws or force states into a federal program. It is unclear whether the proposed legislation would in fact impinge upon states rights and if so, to what extent. The bill contains language granting states flexibility to continue following preexisting state medical malpractice laws. The bill would, however, force states without existing medical malpractice laws to conform to the federal statute by requiring state courts to apply the federal law in medical malpractice suits initiated in state courts.
Tort reform has historically been a partisan issue. Democrats oppose tort reform, claiming limits on damage awards are unfair to the victims of medical malpractice. Republicans believe medical malpractice lawsuits escalate health care costs and force doctors to pay excessive malpractice insurance premiums. They believe tort reform could greatly lower costs in the health care industry. The bill now faces a vote in the full House and is expected to pass, though commentators predict the bill faces an uphill battle in the Democratically controlled Senate.
The full text of the bill can be found here here.
