Author: Betsylew R. Miale-Gix

There are two initiatives on the ballot dealing with healthcare that will directly impact the lives of all Washingtonians if passed. They are I-336 and I-330. Both of these initiatives address issues of justice and malpractice in the context of a perceived insurance and claim cost crisis. They do so, however, in very different ways. I-330 primarily involves limiting recovery and impacting access to justice and other rights of injured claimants. I-336 does so primarily through increased accountability and disclosure for insurance companies, attorneys and doctors, as well as a supplemental insurance fund.

Recent studies by both the Washington State Insurance Commissioners Office and a leading non-partisan consumer group Public Citizen call into question the existence of an actual factual basis for the allegations of crisis which provided the rational for the approach used in I- 330.

The Insurance Commissioners office published their study of malpractice claims over a 10 year period from June 1995 through June 2005, in October 2005. The study included 10,212 claims closed during the period or about 90% of the insurance market in the state. The numbers showed there has been a decrease in claims closed by payment to the claimant every year since 2002. In addition, only 27% of jury trials resulted in verdicts for the plaintiffs, and the total number of jury cases over all declined from that of the preceding 10-year period. The facts showed the increasing premiums doctors are being charged by insurance companies have not been driven by a spike in claims filed or awards made against doctors.

I-330 contains over 20 pages of fine print provisions that need to be assessed in addition to the most well known provision capping general damages. A careful review of those pages, especially in light of the actual facts around claims made, paid and the lack of relationship between them and insurance costs, leads us to conclude I-330 is not in the best interests of the citizens of Washington. Here are some of those provisions and a brief synopsis of why they are the wrong medicine for all of us:

1. I-330 will not cut insurance premiums for Doctors: I-330 contains no provisions which require insurance companies to reduce what doctors pay for malpractice insurance even though those amounts are already designed to generate large profits on top of actual pay outs on claims. I-330 also does not require insurance companies to limit additional premium increases in the future.
2. I-330 hurts the most seriously injured for a second time: The I-330 "cap" limiting non-economic damages to $350,000 would apply only to the people who are most seriously injured and have lost the most through no fault of their own. There is also a "cap" limiting how much of your future wages you can recover. If you are no longer able to work because of your injury you could only be awarded 0.43, or less than half of what you were making and would have continued to make had you not been hurt.
3. I-330 shifts the long term cost of a seriously injured person from the insurance companies to the taxpayers: When the award cap prevents a severely injured person from obtaining a full recovery for the damages done to them, the injured person's family and all of us who pay taxes would bear the burden of paying for their long term care and maintenance - taking public tax dollar funding for programs like DSHS, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI and SSD away from those who really need them to pay for what the profitable insurance companies should be paying. This is likely to further depress already excessively low reimbursement rates for doctors, making one of the real causes of an adverse financial picture worse for the doctors and clinics.
4. I-330 discriminates against women and children: I-330's "cap" on non-economic damages devalues and discriminates against those who cannot prove large economic damages. Those most affected would be stay-at-home mothers, the many women who still make less for doing the same jobs as men, retired women, and children.
5. I-330 makes the elderly and disabled more vulnerable to abuse: I-330 would eliminate existing provisions in Washington law which provide protection to the elderly, developmentally disabled and physically disabled, who reside in group homes, nursing homes or convalescent centers.
6. I-330 would take away your day in Court: I-330 would allow medical providers and insurance companies to force you to sign away your Constitutional right to a day in court as a condition of receiving coverage and/or treatment. If you refused to sign the waiver, they could refuse to treat you or provide health insurance to you thereby limiting access to care.
7. I-330 lets the insurance company pay the settlement or award amount over decades:I-330 would allow insurance companies to spread payment of the settlement over 20 to 30 years rather than paying it to the injured person all at once. If the injured person dies before they have been fully paid, the insurance company would get to keep the remaining money rather than pay it to the surviving family members.
8. I-330 will not reduce the amount of preventable medical mistakes that injure people or allow one to find out who the small number of bad doctors are who do the most harm: Most doctors are excellent. Less than 4% of all doctors commit almost half the total preventable medical negligence. I-330 has no provisions which will bring higher quality medical care to Washington citizens by limiting the amount of preventable injuries. I-330 will not eliminate the secrecy agreements that make it almost impossible to find out whether the doctor you are choosing for yourself or your child has caused preventable injuries to other patients. It requires no additional scrutiny or discipline of doctors, attorneys or insurance companies.
9. I-330 reduces what the injured person can spend on an attorney but not what the insurance company can spend on defense attorneys: I- 330 limits the fees of the lawyer representing the innocent injured person. I-330 does not limit the fees the insurance companies can pay the defense lawyers representing the person(s) and/or entity which caused the injuries and damage to the injured person.

These and many more reasons in the fine print are why so many Legal and Consumer Groups Are United in Opposition to I-330. These groups include among others:

Northwest Chapter of Paralyzed Veterans of America
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Citizens
Washington State Nursing Association
Washington State Chiropractic Association
Brain Injury Association of Washington,
Washington Association of Churches
Washington Citizen Action
Washington State Council of Firefighters (WSCFF)
Washington State Bar Association (an organization of all the attorneys in the state)
Coalition for Labor Union Women (Puget Sound)
Center for Justice and Democracy
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
Public Citizen
Equal Rights Washington
Teamster Joint Counsel 38
United Food and Commercial Workers
Washington ACORN
Washington Federation of State Employees (AFSCME)
Walla Walla Union Bulletin
Skagit Valley Herald
Bainbridge Island Review
Tacoma News Tribune
Seattle Times