Gov Rell: No Caps On

Medical Malpractice Awards

By Noreen Gillespie Associated Press

HARTFORD — In a break with Republicans, Gov M. Jodi Rell proposed a medical malpractice insurance reform package Tuesday that would not cap jury awards against doctors for pain and suffering.

The issue has been a sticking point in enacting reforms to curb the skyrocketing costs of insurance for physicians in Connecticut. The Democrat-controlled General Assembly passed a reform package last year, but former Gov John G. Rowland vetoed it because it did not include caps.

“Unfortunately, people suffer real injuries from medical mistakes, and I believe they should be compensated,” Rell said in a written statement. “I also believe doctors and hospitals should do everything in their power to prevent those accidents from happening in the first place, and my proposals include measures to further that goal.”

Rell’s proposals would require that any award above $200,000 be paid over time. It would also have juries take into account any other payment a victim receives, such as worker’s compensation, when determining damages.

Democrats who have been working on legislation that mirrors Rell’s on many points applauded the plan. While their legislative proposals still differ slightly from Rell’s, taking caps off the table opens the door for compromise, they said.

“The big thing is to get something ... get a good working model in place, which we’ve already lost a year on. And that’s the thing we should all be concerned with,” said Sen Joseph Crisco, D-Woodbridge, the co-chairman of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee.

Rell’s plan does not eliminate the possibility of caps. If the proposals fail to yield a 15 percent reduction in malpractice insurance rates in three years, the state’s insurance commissioner would convene a task force to look at limits.

That was good news to Republican leaders, who said that they will continue to push for caps.

“She clearly hasn’t taken the position that caps are wrong, she’s saying ‘Let’s do the other reforms first,’” said House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford.

Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca, R-Woodbury, said he still favored limits on awards, but has heard from physicians who would accept any reforms as long as their rates are lowered.

“If it can deliver a 15 percent reduction, I don’t think anybody is going to say, ‘We want caps,’” he said.

The Connecticut State Medical Society, one of the most ardent defenders of caps, said it was encouraged by the proposal.

While leaders still believe the limits are the only measure that can provide immediate relief, they said other tenets of Rell’s plan — such as reducing the penalty for failing to settle cases and paying awards over time — could yield premium reductions.

“We’re willing to work on anything that can withstand actuarial muster and reduce premiums,” said Ken Ferrucci, director of government relations for the group. “We still have not seen anything besides limiting noneconomic damages that will get us there, but if we can come up with that, we’re more than happy to be involved in that process.”

Rell’s plan also would require the Department of Public Health to expedite the processing of claims against doctors. It asks that the department update disciplinary procedures to reduce the incidence of malpractice, and keep more detailed records on physicians. Insurance companies would also be required to get prior approval from the state’s insurance commissioner for a rate increase of ten percent or more.

The legislature’s Insurance and Real Estate Committee was scheduled to hold a public hearing on the issue February 10. Democrats are backing a bill that is similar to reforms they pushed last year. While Rell and Democrats agree on some points, parts still remain open for debate.

Crisco said he would like to see more direct, immediate relief for physicians. Democrats last year considered offering a tax credit to doctors who were paying burdensome insurance premiums.

Rep Mary Fritz, D-Woodbridge, led a task force charged with finding ways to lower malpractice insurance rates. She questioned whether paying awards over time was fair to victims, and also wondered about why other payments should factor into the amount of an award.

“Why should what you’re getting paid for work be a factor in what the insurance company pays you?” she said.

Kathleen Nastri, past president of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association, said that Rell’s proposal reaches out to the insurance department, the health department, and the court system, and that’s why it was a good starting point for the discussion.

“They’re all players in it, and you ask each of those departments for some reforms. What you don’t do is you don’t penalize the victims. And I think each of those departments could live with some reforms,” she said.