Maryland Governor Vetoes Medical Malpractice Bill, Override Expected
Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) on Monday, as expected, vetoed a medical malpractice bill recently approved by the Maryland General Assembly, but Democrats say they will almost certainly override the veto during Tuesday's session, the Baltimore Sun reports (Green, Baltimore Sun, 1/11). As approved by the General Assembly on Dec. 30, the bill called for:
- Removing a tax exemption applied to HMOs, making them subject to the same 2% premium tax paid by other insurers;
- Limiting physicians' insurance premium increases to 5% in 2005, rather than the 33% increase set to take effect on Jan. 1;
- Locking the limit on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice suits at $650,000, ending an annual inflation adjustment, and capping the noneconomic damages in death cases at $812,500, half the current level;
- Imposing stricter qualifications for expert witnesses and requiring plaintiffs to file a more detailed "certificate of merit" with an expert explaining the physician's alleged wrongdoing;
- Requiring mediation before allowing a malpractice suit to proceed to trial;
- Increasing Medicaid payments for physicians;
- Easing the standard of proof for the board that disciplines physicians, expanding the state Patient Safety Center's data-collection role and allowing insurers to more quickly cancel physicians considered bad risks;
- Establishing a People's Counsel to represent consumers in malpractice premium rate hearings; and
- Increasing reporting requirements for the state's largest provider of physician insurance.
New revenues from the HMO tax would be used to subsidize the cost of malpractice insurance premium rates and increase the amount of money paid under Medicaid to specialists, who reportedly face the most financial pressure from low insurance reimbursements and high malpractice insurance premiums (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 1/3).
Ehrlich's Reaction
Ehrlich called the bill "a weak resolution" in which "the big-ticket items were negotiated away." He added, "No changes were made concerning tax consequences of lost wages, and no changes were made concerning future medical bills. The provision of the bill that allows the court to appoint a neutral expert is a redundancy because current law already allows a court to appoint an expert in any case. This provision provides absolutely no relief." He also said the bill "hinges on a harmful tax that will serve to increase the cost of health care" when HMOs pass the cost of the tax to customers (Redding, Washington Times, 1/11). "This means that the 1.2 million Marylanders with health coverage through HMOs will have to choose between paying higher premiums or possibly reducing or dropping coverage. This certainly is not a desirable result," he said (Wagner, Washington Post, 1/11). If lawmakers uphold his veto, Ehrlich said he would resubmit his malpractice bill. His proposal called for capping noneconomic damages at $500,000, limiting lawyers' fees, extending the time period for awards to be paid and implementing a three-strikes provision against lawyers who file frivolous malpractice cases (Washington Times, 1/11).
Editorials
Two newspapers also published editorials addressing the state's efforts at reform. Summaries appear below.
-
Baltimore Sun: "The legislation approved by the General Assembly in special session last month" is "absolutely ... flawed," but the "deficiencies can be corrected," a Sun editorial states. The editorial adds, "The risk of sustaining the veto is that nothing will get done. Insurance rates will continue to skyrocket and that, in medical terms, is unacceptable" (Baltimore Sun, 1/11).
- Wall Street Journal: The General Assembly's bill "is a long way from the reforms Maryland needs to make health care affordable," the Journal states. The Journal adds, "Trial lawyers aren't going to stop waging legal warfare on the health care industry until it's no longer profitable to do so," concluding, "That day isn't brought any closer by creating a special tax to make sure the tort bar can continue to wring money from the system" (Wall Street Journal, 1/10).