Washington State House of Representatives Office of Program Research |
BILL ANALYSIS |
Judiciary Committee | |
HB 2292 & SB 6087
Title: An act relating to improving health care by increasing patient safety, reducing medical errors, reforming medical malpractice insurance, and resolving medical malpractice claims fairly without imposing mandatory limits on damage awards or fees.
Brief Description: Addressing health care liability reform.
Sponsors: Representatives Lantz, Cody, Campbell, Kirby, Flannigan, Williams, Linville, Springer, Clibborn, Wood, Fromhold, Morrell, Hunt, Moeller, Green, Kilmer, Conway, O'Brien, Sells, Kenney, Kessler, Chase, Upthegrove, Ormsby, Lovick, McCoy and Santos.
Brief Summary of Bill |
|
Hearing Date: 3/22/05
Staff: Edie Adams (786-7180).
Background:
The Washington Constitution gives the people the power to legislate through the initiative
process, either by initiative directly to the people or by initiative to the Legislature. Under the
Constitution, the Legislature may deal with an initiative to the Legislature in one of the following
ways: (1) enact the initiative during the regular session; (2) reject the initiative or take no action
on it, in which case the measure is submitted to a vote of the people at the next general election;
or (3) reject or take no action on the measure and propose a different measure dealing with the
same subject, in which case both the initiative and the legislative alternative are submitted to a
vote of the people.
The people have submitted two initiatives to the Legislature, Initiatives 330 and 336, which both
deal broadly with the health care liability system. Initiative 330 proposes changes to the civil
liability system as applied to medical negligence cases. Initiative 336 proposes changes to the
medical malpractice insurance system, the health care system's handling of negligence and
unanticipated outcomes, and some aspects of the health care liability system.
INITIATIVE 330
Limitations on Non-Economic Damages: A $350,000 cap on a claimant's non-economic
damages award is established, regardless of the number of health care professionals or health
care institutions or entities involved. An additional $350,000 award for non-economic damages
is allowed against a health care institution that is liable for acts of persons other than health care
professionals, up to a maximum of $700,000 combined for all institutions.
If the limitation on non-economic damages is ruled unconstitutional, it will take effect after a
state constitutional amendment is passed that empowers the Legislature to place limits on
non-economic damages in civil actions or after passage of a federal law allowing such
limitations.
Attorneys' Contingency Fees: An attorneys' contingency fee for handling a medical negligence
case is limited to no more than: 40 percent of the first $50,000 recovered; 33.33 percent of the
next $50,000; 25 percent of the next $500,000; and 15 percent of any amount in which the
recovery exceeds $600,000. These limits apply to recoveries received in any manner, including
by judgment, settlement, or alternative dispute resolution.
Prior Notice and Mandatory Mediation: A plaintiff in a medical negligence action must provide
a defendant with 90-days prior notice of the intention to file a lawsuit. All medical negligence
actions are subject to mandatory mediation without exception, unless the action is subject to
binding arbitration.
Statute of Limitations: A medical negligence action must be commenced within the earlier of
three years from the act or omission, or one year from the time the patient discovered or
reasonably should have discovered that the injury was caused by the act or omission. An action
may be brought after the three year statute of limitations period only under the following
circumstances:
Tolling of the statute of limitations for minority, incompetency, disability, or imprisonment is
eliminated.
Collateral Sources: Evidence of any collateral source payment made or to be made in the future
may be introduced into evidence. The party receiving the collateral payments may present
evidence of amounts paid to secure the right to the compensation. The ability of the plaintiff to
show an obligation to repay the collateral source payment is removed. Rights of subrogation or
reimbursement from a plaintiff's tort judgment are prohibited unless required under superseding
federal law.
Arbitration Clauses: A binding arbitration clause in a health care services contract must be the
first provision of the contract and must be expressed in language provided in the act. A
disclosure concerning binding arbitration must be provided in bold type immediately preceding
the signature line in the contract. A binding arbitration clause that complies with these
requirements is declared not to be a contract of adhesion, unconscionable or otherwise improper.
Periodic Payment of Damages: An award of future economic and non-economic damages of
$50,000 or more must be paid by periodic payments at the request of any party. A judgment
debtor who is not adequately insured must post security adequate to satisfy the judgment. The
periodic payment judgment may be modified upon the death of the judgment creditor to eliminate
payments for future medical treatment, care or custody, loss of bodily function, or pain and
suffering. Money damages for loss of future earnings may not be reduced or terminated upon the
judgment creditor's death, but must be paid to persons to whom the judgment creditor owed a
duty of support.
If the debtor has a continuing pattern of failing to make payments, the court must find the debtor
in contempt of court and order the debtor to pay damages suffered as a result of the failure to
make timely payments, including court costs and attorneys' fees.
Ostensible Agency: A hospital is not vicariously liable for the negligence of a health care
provider who is granted privileges to provide care at the hospital unless the provider is an agent
or employee of the hospital and was acting within the course and scope of the provider's agency
or employment with the hospital. A health care provider is not vicariously liable for the
negligence of another provider unless the other provider is an actual agent or employee acting
under the provider's direct supervision and control.
Vulnerable Adults: In civil actions involving abuse, exploitation, or neglect of a vulnerable
adult being cared for in a facility or by a home health, hospice, or home care agency, the ability
of a prevailing plaintiff to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and expert costs is removed.
Joint and Several Liability: Joint and several liability is eliminated in medical negligence
actions, and each defendant is responsible for only his or her proportionate share of the damages,
except where the defendants acted in concert or one party acted as the agent or under the direct
supervision and control of another party.
INITIATIVE 336
Malpractice Insurance Rate Notification: The Office of the Insurance Commissioner
(Commissioner) must notify the public of any medical malpractice insurance rate filing where the
rate change is less than 15 percent, and any consumer may request a public hearing on the rate
filing. The Commissioner must order a public hearing on a rate filing of 15 percent or more.
Rate filings are not effective until approved by the Commissioner after the public hearing. If no
public hearing was held on the rate filing, the filing is approved 45 days after public notice.
Supplemental Malpractice Insurance Program: A supplemental malpractice insurance program is
established to provide excess liability coverage to health care facilities and providers who either
self-insure or purchase liability insurance in amounts equal to specified retained limit
requirements. The program will pay claims and related defense costs in excess of the retained
limits up to the policy limits of the program. The program is operated by an appointed board and
is funded by annual premiums and potential capital calls.
Claims Reporting: Insuring entities and self-insurers must report monthly to the Commissioner
any medical malpractice claim that resulted in a final judgment, settlement, or disposition with
no indemnity payment. Facilities and providers must report the claim if the insurer does not.
Insurers who fail to report are subject to a fine of $250 per case up to a maximum of $10,000.
Facilities and providers who fail to report are subject to a fine or disciplinary action by the
Department of Health (Department).
The Commissioner must use the data to prepare aggregate statistical summaries and an annual
report summarizing and analyzing the data for trends in the types, frequency, and severity of
claims and the status of the medical malpractice market.
Health Care Provider Discipline: The Department must investigate a health care professional
who has three paid claims within the most recent five-year period where the indemnity payment
for each claim was $50,000 or more.
A person who has committed three incidents of medical malpractice, found through final court
judgments, can't be licensed or continue to be licensed to practice medicine. Mitigating
circumstances may be found where there is a strong potential for rehabilitation or for remedial
education or training that will prevent future harm to the public.
Medical Quality Assurance Commission (MQAC): The public membership component of the
MQAC is increased from four to six members, and at least two of the public members must be
representatives of patient advocacy groups.
Patient Disclosure: A health care provider's failure to disclose the provider's experience with a
treatment at the patient's request is a violation of the duty to secure informed consent.
Upon written request of a patient or immediate family member of a disabled or deceased patient,
a health care facility or provider must make available for examination and copying any records
made or received by the facility or provider relating to any adverse medical incident. The
identity of a patient and any information protected by privacy restrictions under federal law may
not be disclosed in providing the access. "Adverse incident" means negligence, intentional
misconduct, and any other act or omission that caused or could have caused injury or death to a
patient.
Court Reports of Settlements or Verdicts: The court clerk must report to the Department any
medical malpractice action verdict or settlement that exceeds $100,000.
Expert Limits: In a medical malpractice action, each side is entitled to only two experts on an
issue except on a showing of necessity. If there are multiple parties on a side who are unable to
agree on the experts, the court may allow additional experts on an issue to be called upon a
showing of necessity.
Attorney Certification and Certificate of Merit: An attorney who files an action, counterclaim,
cross claim, or a defense certifies by his or her signature and filing that, to the best of the
attorney's knowledge and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, it is not frivolous. A violation
is punishable by sanctions, which may include costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by
the other party in response to the frivolous claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or defense.
Within 120 days after filing suit, an attorney or plaintiff must file a certificate of merit that states
that a qualified expert has been consulted and the expert believes that it is more probable than not
that the claim satisfies a basis for recovery.
Summary of Bill:
The Legislature finds that addressing the issues of consumer access to health care and the
increasing costs of medical malpractice insurance requires comprehensive solutions that
encourage patient safety, increase oversight of medical malpractice insurance, and make the civil
justice system more understandable, fair, and efficient. The Legislature finds that neither
Initiative 330 nor Initiative 336 offer the necessary comprehensive solution to these problems.
The Legislature proposes this act as an alternative to both Initiatives 330 and 336. The act
contains a variety of changes designated under the following headings: Patient Safety; Insurance
Industry Reform, and Health Care Liability Reform.
PATIENT SAFETY
Statements of Apology: In a medical negligence action, a statement of fault, apology or
sympathy, or a statement of remedial actions that may be taken, is not admissible as evidence if
the statement was conveyed by a health care provider to the injured person more than 20 days
before the suit was filed and it relates to the person's discomfort, pain, or injury. A statement of
fault may be admissible for impeachment purposes through an in-camera review process if the
court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the witness has directly contradicted the
previous statement of fault on an issue of fact material to the proceeding.
Reports of Unprofessional Conduct: A health care professional who makes a good faith report,
files charges, or presents evidence to a disciplining authority against another member of a health
profession relating to unprofessional conduct or inability to practice safely due to a physical or
mental condition is immune in a civil action for damages resulting from such good faith
activities. A health care professional who prevails in a civil action on the good faith defense is
entitled to recover expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in establishing the defense.
Medical Quality Assurance Commission: The public membership component of the MQAC is
increased from four to six members, and at least two of the public members must be
representatives of patient advocacy groups.
Health Care Provider Discipline: When imposing a sanction, a health profession disciplining
authority may consider prior findings of unprofessional conduct, stipulations to informal
disposition, and the actions of other state disciplining authorities.
Any combination of three unrelated orders for the following acts of unprofessional conduct
within a 10-year period results in the permanent revocation of a health care professional's license:
A one-time finding of specified mitigating circumstance may be issued to excuse a violation if
there is either strong potential for rehabilitation or strong potential that remedial education and
training will prevent future harm to the public. A finding of mitigating circumstances may be
issued as many times as the disciplining authority determines that the act at issue involved a
high-risk procedure without any lower-risk alternatives, the patient was aware of the procedure's
risks, and the health care provider took remedial steps prior to the disciplinary action.
Disclosure of Adverse Events: A medical facility must report the occurrence of an "adverse
event" to the Department within 45 days of its occurrence. A medical facility or health care
worker may report the occurrence of an "incident" to the Department. "Adverse events" are
defined as: unanticipated deaths or major permanent losses of function; patient suicides; infant
abductions or discharges to the wrong family; sexual assault or rape; transfusions with major
blood incompatibilities; surgery performed on the wrong patient or site; major facility system
malfunctions; or fires affecting patient care or treatment. An "incident" is defined as an event
involving clinical care that could have injured the patient or that resulted in an unanticipated
injury less severe than death or a major permanent loss of function.
Reports of adverse events and incidents must identify the facility, but may not identify any health
care professionals, employees, or patients involved in the event or incident. Medical facilities
must provide written notification to patients who may have been affected by the adverse event.
The Department is responsible for investigating reports of adverse events and establishing a
system for medical facilities and health care workers to report adverse events and incidents. In
addition, the Department must evaluate the data to identify patterns of adverse events and
incidents and recommend ways to reduce adverse events and incidents and improve health care
practices and procedures.
Coordinated Quality Improvement Programs: The types of programs that may apply to the
Department to become coordinated quality improvement programs are expanded to include
consortiums of health care providers that consist of at least five health care providers.
Prescription Legibility: Prescriptions for legend drugs must either be hand-printed, typewritten,
or generated electronically.
INSURANCE INDUSTRY REFORM
Medical Malpractice Closed Claim Reporting: Self-insurers and insuring entities that write
medical malpractice insurance are required to report any closed claim resulting in a judgment,
settlement, or no payment to the Commissioner within 60 days after the claim is closed. The
reports must contain specified data relating to: the type of health care provider, specialty, and
facility involved; the dates when the event occurred, the claim was reported to the insurer, and
the suit was filed; the claimant's age and sex; and information about the settlement, judgement, or
other disposition of the claim, including an itemization of damages and litigation expenses.
If an insurer does not report to the Commissioner because of a policy limitation, the provider or
facility must report a claim to the Commissioner. The Commissioner may impose a fine against
insuring entities who fail to report of up to $250 per day up to a total of $10,000. The
Department may impose a fine against a facility or provider that fails to report of up to $250 per
day up to a total of $10,000.
A claimant or the claimant's attorney in a medical malpractice action must report to the
Commissioner the amount of court costs, attorneys' fees, or expert witness costs incurred in the
action.
The Commissioner must use the data to prepare aggregate statistical summaries of closed claims
and an annual report of closed claims and insurer financial reports. The annual report must
include specified information, such as: trends in frequency and severity of claims; an itemization
of economic and non-economic damages; an itemization of allocated loss adjustment expenses; a
loss ratio analysis; a profitability analysis for medical malpractice insurers; a comparison of loss
ratios and profitability; and a summary of approved medical malpractice rate filings for the prior
year, including analyzing the trend of losses compared to prior years.
Any information in a closed claim report that may result in the identification of a claimant,
provider, health care facility, or self-insurer is exempt from public disclosure.
Underwriting Standards: Medical malpractice insurers must file their underwriting standards at
least 30 days before the standards become effective. The filing must identify and explain: the
class, type, and extent of coverage provided by the insurer; any changes that have occurred to the
underwriting standards; and how underwriting changes are expected to affect future losses. The
information is subject to public disclosure. "Underwrite" is defined as the process of selecting,
rejecting, or pricing a risk.
When an insurer takes an adverse action against an insured, such as cancellation of coverage or
an unfavorable change in coverage, the insurer may consider the following factors only in
combination with other substantive underwriting factors: (1) that an inquiry was made about the
nature or scope of coverage; (2) that a notification was made about a potential claim which did
not result in the filing of a claim; or (3) that a claim was closed without payment.
Cancellation or Non-Renewal of Liability Insurance Policies: The mandatory notice period for
cancellation or non-renewal of medical malpractice liability insurance policies is increased from
45 days to 90 days. An insurer must actually deliver or mail to the insured a written notice of
cancellation of a medical malpractice liability insurance policy. For policies the insurer will not
renew, the notice must state that the insurer will not renew the policy upon its expiration date.
Prior Approval of Medical Malpractice Insurance Rates: Medical malpractice rate filings and
form filings are changed from the current "use and file" system to a prior approval system. An
insurer must, prior to issuing a medical malpractice policy, file the policy rate and forms with the
Commissioner. The Commissioner must review the filing, which cannot become effective until
30 days after its filing.
HEALTH CARE LIABILITY REFORM
Statutes of Limitations and Repose: Tolling of the statute of limitations during minority is
eliminated.
The eight-year statute of repose is re-established. Legislative intent and findings regarding the
justification for a statute of repose are provided in response to the Washington Supreme Court's
decision overturning the statute of repose in DeYoung v. Providence Medical Center.
Expert Witnesses: An expert witness in a medical malpractice action must meet the following
qualifications: (1) have expertise in the medical condition at issue in the action; and (2) was
engaged in active practice or teaching in the same or similar area of practice or specialty as the
defendant at the time of the incident, or at the time of retirement for a provider who retired no
more than five years prior to suit. The court may waive these requirements under specified
circumstances.
An expert opinion provided during the course of a medical malpractice action must be
corroborated by admissible evidence, such as treatment or practice protocols or guidelines,
objective academic research, or clinical trials.
The number of expert witnesses allowed in a medical negligence action is limited to two per
party on an issue, except upon a showing of good cause. All parties to a medical malpractice
action must file a pretrial expert report that discloses the identity of all expert witnesses and
states the nature of the testimony the experts will present at trial. Further depositions of the
experts are prohibited. The testimony presented by an expert at trial is limited in nature to the
opinions presented in the pretrial report.
Certificate of Merit: In medical negligence actions involving a claim of a breach of the standard
of care, the plaintiff must file a certificate of merit at the time of commencing the action, or no
later than 45 days after filing the action if the action is filed within 45 days of the running of the
statute of limitations. The certificate of merit must be executed by a qualified expert and state
that there is a reasonable probability that the defendant's conduct did not meet the required
standard of care based on the information known at the time. The court for good cause may grant
up to a 90-day extension for filing the certificate of merit.
Failure to file a certificate of merit that complies with these requirements results in dismissal of
the case. If a case is dismissed for failure to comply with the certificate of merit requirements,
the filing of the claim may not be used against the health care provider in liability insurance rate
setting, personal credit history, or professional licensing or credentialing.
Offers of Settlement: An offer of settlement provision is created for medical malpractice actions.
In an action where a party made an offer of settlement that is not accepted by the opposing party,
the court may, in its discretion, award prevailing party attorneys' fees. "Prevailing party" means a
party who makes an offer of settlement that is not accepted by the opposing party and who
improves his or her position at trial relative to his or her offer of settlement.
In the case of a defendant, the offer of settlement provision applies only if the defendant
previously made a disclosure to the claimant within seven days of learning that the claimant
suffered an unanticipated outcome. The disclosure must have included: disclosure of the
unanticipated outcome; an apology or expression of sympathy; and assurances that steps would
be taken to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
When determining whether an award of attorneys' fees should be made to a prevailing party, the
court may consider: (1) whether the party who rejected the offer of settlement was substantially
justified in bringing the case to trial; (2) the extent to which additional relevant and material facts
became known after the offer was rejected; (3) whether the offer of settlement was made in good
faith; (4) the closeness of questions of fact and law at issue in the case; (5) whether a party
engaged in conduct that unreasonably delayed the proceedings; (6) whether the circumstances
make an award unjust; and (7) any other factor the court deems appropriate.
Voluntary Arbitration: A new voluntary arbitration system is established for disputes involving
alleged professional negligence in the provision of health care. The voluntary arbitration system
may be used only where all parties have agreed to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration
once the suit is filed, either through the initial complaint and answer, or after the commencement
of the suit upon stipulation by all parties.
The maximum award an arbitrator can make is limited to $1,000,000 for both economic and
non-economic damages. In addition, the arbitrator may not make an award of damages based on
the "ostensible agency" theory of vicarious liability.
The arbitrator is selected by agreement of the parties and the parties may agree to more than one
arbitrator. If the parties are unable to agree to an arbitrator, the court must select an arbitrator
from names submitted by each side. A dispute submitted to the voluntary arbitration system
must follow specified time periods that will result in the commencement of the arbitration no
later than 10 months after the parties agreed to submit to voluntary arbitration.
The number of experts allowed for each side is generally limited to two experts on the issue of
liability, two experts on the issue of damages, and one rebuttal expert. In addition, the parties are
generally entitled to only limited discovery. Depositions of parties and expert witnesses are
limited to four hours per deposition and the total number of additional depositions of other
witnesses is limited to five per side, for no more than two hours per deposition.
There is no right to a trial de novo on an appeal of the arbitrator's decision. An appeal is limited
to the bases for appeal provided under the current arbitration statute for vacation of an award
under circumstances where there was corruption or misconduct, or for modification or correction
of an award to correct evident mistakes.
Collateral Sources: The collateral source payment statute is amended to remove the restriction
on presenting evidence of collateral source payments that come from insurance purchased by the
plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, may introduce evidence of amounts paid to secure the right to
the collateral source payments (e.g., premiums), in addition to introducing evidence of an
obligation to repay the collateral source compensation.
MISCELLANEOUS
The Secretary of State is directed to place this act on the ballot in conjunction with Initiative 330
and in conjunction with Initiative 336 at the next regular general election.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Not requested.
Effective Date: The bill takes effect if approved by the people.