There is good news on the medical malpractice issue in Pennsylvania.

Last week, the state Supreme Court released statistics showing that the number of new malpractice cases filed in 2003 has decreased by 28 percent over the past three years.

The decline, largely due to reforms passed in 2002 at the urging of Gov. Ed Rendell, is another signal that we should not rush to amend our state constitution to limit non-economic jury awards to victims of medical malpractice.

Reforms included a requirement that attorneys obtain certificates of merit from other medical professionals before filing suits and a ban on "venue-shopping," or filing cases in counties where juries tend to favor plaintiffs.

Now that officials have begun tracking malpractice cases and obtaining actual statistics, it turns out there is no proof that jury verdicts are driving up the cost of medical malpractice insurance or forcing Pennsylvania doctors to relocate.

At the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that the state's malpractice insurance industry is allowed to change its rate structure and underwriting practices at will with little or no regulation. In fact, no insurance company has committed to dropping its rates if jury awards are eventually capped.

In the 12 years after California limited non-economic damages to $250,000, malpractice premiums increased by 190 percent. It wasn't until that state instituted stringent insurance reform that malpractice rates were stabilized. In 2001, California's rates were still eight percent higher than the average of all states that have no caps.

Sadly, the Pennsylvania caps battle has become more about politics than real reform that will improve the quality of health care.

Our legislators should be encouraged by the recent successes, continue to track statistics and pursue additional reforms, including regulation of the insurance industry.