Document text
45 °F Forecast | Road Cams Monday, January 24, 2005 Today's News | Classifieds | Autos | Homes | Jobs | Tempo | Health | Community | Home Delivery SECTIONS Home Page Local News Sports Business Obituaries Life Opinion - Politics Tempo AP News Weather Classified Archives Site Map SPECIAL SECTIONS Since We Asked Outdoor Journal Menu Guide How To Guide Wellness Connection Readers' Choice Real Estate Showcase Real Estate Guide Joy Magazine Homelife Magazine Wedding Guide Passport to the Rogue Valley EXTRA Newspaper in Education Personals Movie Times TV Times E The People Volunteer Opportunities Moving to Southern Oregon? MARKETPLACE Find a Car Find a Home Find a Job Classifieds Place an ad eSouthernOregon Automotive Communities Entertainment Publications Recreation Calendar CUSTOMER SERVICE Frequent Questions Advertising Information Home Delivery Employment Contact Us Media Kit Network Affiliate Oregon Road Conditions & Cams Email Story to a Friend September 26, 2004 Measure 35 aims at suits It would put malpractice ‘pain and suffering’ limits in Oregon’s Constitution By BILL KETTLER Mail Tribune What’s the price of pain? Ballot Measure 35 asks voters to consider the dollar value of intangibles such as pain, emotional distress and loss of sexual relations. The measure on the Nov. 2 ballot would amend the Oregon Constitution to set a cap of $500,000 for "noneconomic" damages in medical malpractice lawsuits. Besides pain and emotional distress, noneconomic damages could be awarded for conditions such as inconvenience, loss of companionship and interference with the ordinary activities of daily living. The measure limits only money granted for noneconomic damages — commonly known as "pain and suffering" awards. If voters approve the measure, juries could still grant larger sums for "economic" damages such as lost income and the actual costs of caring for a victim of medical negligence. Proponents of the measure — a coalition that includes physicians, hospitals and insurance companies — say it should pass to ensure that Oregon has enough doctors to deliver babies and treat patients with life-threatening injuries. Opponents — a group that includes trial lawyers, senior and consumer advocates and many labor groups — say it should fail in order to preserve citizens’ rights to trial by jury. Advertisement Caps on jury awards are nothing new. Oregon had a cap from 1987 until 1999, when the state Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. About 20 other states have caps, including California, Idaho, Colorado, Utah and Texas. Many of those states’ caps are under Oregon’s proposed $500,000 limit, which would be adjustable to account for inflation. Doctors say their malpractice insurance costs started to rise as soon as Oregon’s cap came off in 1999. High-risk medical specialists, such as neurosurgeons and obstetricians, saw the highest increases, as insurance companies raised their rates to cover losses in malpractice cases. Dr. Paul Schroeder of Medford watched premiums for obstetricians climb steadily from $20,000 to $40,000 to $60,000. He finally decided to drop obstetrics and limit his practice to gynecology. Several other Jackson County obstetricians have followed suit. Schroeder says physicians support juries’ right to award economic damages, but he wonders how much society can afford to pay in non-economic damages. "Half a million dollars is 15 times the income of the average Oregonian," he says. Schroeder says one local obstetrician will have to pay $83,000 for his malpractice insurance when it comes due in December. New obstetricians cannot get insurance at any price if they want to work independently. They must join a group practice to be considered for insurance. Physicians say high malpractice insurance rates make Oregon unattractive for new physicians and encourage others to leave the state or retire early. Other factors, such as Oregon’s low reimbursement from the federal government for treating seniors covered by Medicare, also encourage newly minted physicians to look for work someplace other than Oregon. Without a cap, Oregon soon won’t have enough obstetricians to deliver babies or enough neurosurgeons to care for accident victims, says Mike Bond, chief executive of PrimeCare, Jackson County’s association of independent physicians. High malpractice premiums have a disproportionately large effect in Southern Oregon, where physicians earn far less than their colleagues in larger communities, Bond says. "If nothing is done, physicians are going to stop performing high-risk services that people need to save their lives and deliver their babies." Opponents of the measure note there is no language in the measure that guarantees lower malpractice insurance rates. "We should not be changing our constitution to take away victims’ rights," says Dr. Tom Saddoris, a Portland internist. Saddoris, a self-described critic of the insurance industry, is one of the few physicians who has taken a public stance against the measure. Supporters say Oregon’s experience with a cap indicates that it would work again. Jim Dorigan, of Northwest Physicians Mutual Insurance, says malpractice rates were relatively stable during the 12 years the cap was in force. Opponents say there have been only a few cases in which pain and suffering awards have exceeded the proposed limit. Those people often used that money to pay for unanticipated expenses that exceeded the economic damages, says Kristi Schaefer, a Portland nurse who treats people with brain injuries. "Most people think if somebody gets $500,000 everything will be fine," Schaefer says. "They just don’t understand all the ramifications of someone being injured by negligence." Dorigan says those big-dollar jury awards "raise the bar" for other cases, and demands for noneconomic damages in the millions often prompt physicians and insurance companies to settle out of court. "When the noneconomic demands are for $10 (million) or $20 million, it’s very difficult for a doctor to risk going to trial," he says. "A lot of the big settlements are driven by demands for noneconomic damages." Opponents of the measure say what’s really needed is insurance reform, and measures that make physicians more accountable for their mistakes. "Changing the constitution isn’t the right way to address insurance reform in Oregon," says Schaefer, the Portland nurse. Supporters say the measure still allows patients to take their grievances to a jury and to be compensated for any economic loss that occurs because of injuries from medical malpractice. Voters have to decide whether compensating individual victims for emotional damage is worth the cost of limited access to care in local communities, says Bond, the manager of Jackson County’s physicians association. "Since the cap was removed, we’ve lost six or seven OBs in Jackson County alone," he says. "Our trauma system has been reclassified down from level 2 to level 3. We’re losing neurosurgeons and we’re unable to recruit new ones. If you’re going to have a baby, or if you’re critically injured in an accident, you might not be able to get care in this community." Reach reporter Bill Kettler at 776-4492, or e-mail [email protected] Mail Tribune Home Local News | Sports | Business | Obituaries | Life Opinion - Politics | AP News | Archives | Site Map E Southern Oregon | Classified Copyright © 1997-2005 Mail Tribune. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions Website Feedback ADVERTISERS A D V E R T I S E R S SPECIAL SECTIONS Auto Finder Job Finder Home Finder Joy Magazine Homelife Magazine Tempo Readers' Choice Real Estate Showcase Since We Asked Outdoor Journal Moving to Southern Oregon? Volunteer Opportunities Student Loan Consolidation Conference Calls - $50/Month Home Security Systems Trunks, Footlocker, Trunk, Footlockers