Your editorial contending that a Florida Senate panel's move to place witnesses under oath somehow changed the facts of the medical liability crisis was flat-out wrong. First, the Senate Judiciary Committee held two days of one-sided hearings that were designed to discredit doctors, hospitals and insurance companies, not to seek the truth.
You suggest that representatives of doctors, hospitals and insurance companies changed their testimony from earlier forums when placed under oath by senators. Wrong - we said the same things we've been saying for months! What was different was that senators limited their questions and witness list to elicit the responses they wanted.
An academic task force studied this issue for months, traveled the state, took testimony from hundreds of witnesses and issued a comprehensive 345-page final report with 13 volumes of supporting materials. The task force found that Florida faces a worsening medical liability crisis, and that comprehensive reforms are needed. The Senate panel cannot rewrite this record of evidence with two days of narrowly focused questioning.
You state as a "startling admission" that there are no "frivolous lawsuits" against doctors. Somehow, in your eyes this lessens the crisis. Make no mistake, many suits are filed that lack merit, yet they are settled to avoid risking greater exposure at trial. The real problem is that the frequency and severity of claims are rising. The task force found that in 2000, Florida's claims frequency was 36 percent higher than the national average, and claims payments were 50 percent higher than the rest of the country.
You criticize doctors and hospitals for offering only "anecdotal" evidence of a crisis. This fails to acknowledge the testimonials offered in various forums by thousands of doctors and hospitals about how this crisis is impacting them. The isolated fact that the number of licensed physicians is going up simply doesn't tell the whole story. Doctors are moving to other states, retiring, ceasing to perform high-risk procedures, and limiting their patient loads, yet maintaining Florida licenses. Hospitals are struggling to provide adequate staffing for emergency rooms and trauma centers, and have closed services such as obstetrics, neurosurgery and mammography.
The truth is, the Senate Judiciary Committee was successful in creating some misleading headlines this week, but neither the panel nor the Senate as a whole has embraced a compromise that will end this crisis. We are grateful that Gov. Jeb Bush continues to insist on meaningful reforms, and that the House leadership supports key elements of the governor's reform package. It's time for the Senate to stop delaying a resolution to this crisis and start acting in the interest of protecting health care for 16-million Floridians.
-- Bob Asztalos, Coalition to Heal Healthcare in Florida, Tallahassee
Keep our right to just compensation
Re: Medical malpractice "crisis."
As a "little guy" Florida citizen, I find it incredibly frustrating to be forced to watch Gov. Jeb Bush continue his tirade in support of medical malpractice settlement caps. This week's revealing testimony (forced out of insurance industry executives and regulators by some courageous state senators) not only proved that there is no medical malpractice "crisis" in Florida, but also demonstrated that Florida is actually one of the insurance industry's most profitable states in which to do business. The claim that "doctors are leaving the state in droves" appears to be based on specious anecdotal information. The fact is that there are more doctors in Florida than ever. Also, look at the statistics: Big dollar malpractice settlements are few and far between - specific legal guidelines are already in place to prevent the vast majority of frivolous lawsuits.
The real reason insurance companies may be less profitable than in the past is the same reason most of us "little guys" have seen our investments and 401(k) savings shrink in the last two years: "It's the economy, stupid!" (Do something about that, Jeb!)
Wake up Floridians! Bush's arrogant crusade to limit our right to appropriate compensation if we are severely impaired by medical negligence is nothing more than a blatant pay-off to some of his major campaign contributors: the medical and insurance lobbies.
Kudos to Sen. Jim King and the other leaders in the Senate who are staking their political lives on representing their constituents. Hold the line, gentlemen - we won't forget you at the next election.
-- Jim Stewart, Clearwater
The specialists are leaving
Re: Political malpractice.
Florida is losing doctors. You only have to look in St. Petersburg to get the facts. You may be confusing the total number of physicians with high-risk specialists. In the last 10 years, the city has had a net loss of about a dozen surgeons to retirement, leaving the state or actually leaving the profession altogether. This is not anecdotal, this is a fact.
-- Manu Nanda, M.D., St. Petersburg
Political arm-twisting is the wrong way
I hadn't noticed the megalomania before. Elected officials in Gov. Bush's own party disagree with him on an issue as abstruse as medical malpractice insurance regulation, so he moves to ride them out of the party?
Laws should be based on deliberate consideration of relevant information rather than being the result of a raw test of political strength and will.
I am taken aback that sworn testimony is not the rule in the Florida Legislature. Legislatures are designed to take their time, gather information from the experts on complex issues, deliberate and then formulate policy. If a legislature has the means to compel truthful testimony, it should always use it. It demeans itself by permitting truthfulness in testimony to be optional. Lobbyists' lies should have no weight.
A political arm-wrestling contest on an issue as complex as medical malpractice reform will likely result in bad policy. It will certainly leave the issue up for further controversy by convincing the public that policy was set by politics rather than deliberative consideration.
Different medical malpractice liability ceilings are not the stuff of "core values." Condemning, as party apostates, those who oppose the governor's preferences on an issue as complex as medical malpractice regulation reveals a governor too full of himself for his own good, the good of his party and the people.
Legislators who differ with Bush on this issue will do us all a favor (not least, the governor) by taking their time and getting it right. Reform is due, but it would be hard to imagine a worse way for it to be done than by raw political intimidation - a game of political chicken. The governor should calm down and act his age.
-- Doug Bevins, Dade City
Put caps and reforms on insurance
Re: Political malpractice.
Finally, an intelligent article that gets to the facts and dispels the propaganda we, the voters, are bombarded with every day regarding the malpractice issue. Here's what I believe is the real problem: The caps and reforms need to be placed firmly on the insurance companies' shoulders.
Unless someone has had a personal experience or knows someone who has been injured or worse by anything from malpractice to personal injury, they believe the scare tactics thrown at us all of the time. The average person is not aware of all the laws that make lawsuits difficult to get into a court room, and even more difficult to win if you get there.
The insurance companies have deep pockets to move their cause. While we voters do not have deep pockets to influence and lobby our government, we do have our right to vote these people in or out of office. We are the people they serve, not the other way around. The e-mail, snail mail and phone calls should be pouring into the offices of the governor and lawmakers, to tell them what we want. After all, they are supposed to speak for us.
I hope that in short order the good people of Florida will tire of Jeb Bush's "my way or the highway" attitude and tell him so.
-- Linda Belusky, St. Petersburg
Endangering the Republican agenda
I'm a lifelong Republican who has supported Gov. Jeb Bush consistently. I want to alert him to the impression I'm getting from his actions on the current medical malpractice issue.
I admittedly do not feel strongly for or against the caps the governor is championing, although, fundamentally, it seems that market forces should prevail over artificial legal thresholds. My concern is that the governor appears to have drawn an inflexible line in the sand regarding the specifics of this issue, and in the process has lost sight of the role of the executive, as opposed to the legislative branch.
I cannot conceive of a reason why the governor feels so strongly that his framework is the only viable one for solving a thorny issue for Floridians. But his public rebuke of any view that doesn't mirror his own causes me great concern. The governor is elected to an executive position by the electorate, he is not a monarch with a rubber stamp Legislature to carry out his agenda - we elected the legislators as well.
Republicans have an opportunity to create laws and effect positive changes while holding such a dominant position in the Legislature and executive branch. The intractable positions and rhetoric from the governor's administration seem to be eroding precious good will that is essential to furthering the entire Republican agenda. He should remember the checks and balances of these branches of government were created to ensure that the laws we live by are passed by a representative government, not a single influential, charismatic executive.
-- Scott M. Palladay, Clearwater
Forest road policy is a balanced one
The "games" referred to in your June 30 piece, Loopholes for loggers, seem quite popular at your editorial board table. However, we prefer to leave the games to you. Protecting the environment and ensuring that the roadless character of national forests is maintained are things the Bush administration takes quite seriously.
The Bush administration's proposal to retain the roadless rule is a balanced, common-sense approach to a very complex issue. It is a responsible solution that protects the environment, and offers relief from a controversial policy that had blocked access to areas of vital human and environmental concern.
Under a proposed amendment to the rule that will be issued this fall, governors would have the opportunity to seek relief when exceptional circumstances exist. The procedure for granting an exception, however, will be a public, open process that undergoes strict analysis and public comment. These exceptional circumstances are: (1) protect human health and safety; (2) reduce hazardous fuels that could lead to catastrophic fire or maintain vital wildlife habitat; (3) maintain essential existing facilities, such as dams, that provide water to our communities; or (4) provide access to private property.
A court settlement will modify application of the roadless rule to both the Tongass and Chugach National Forests. Under the proposals, timber harvest would be prohibited on the vast majority of national forest in Alaska - approximately 95 percent - as required by existing forest plans. The proposals would not change any old-growth reserves, riparian buffers, beach fringe buffers, roadless areas and other protections contained in these plans.
-- Mark Rey, under secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Share your opinions
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
