AN EFFORT TO DECEIVE ON HOSPITAL `REFORM'

Author(s):    THOMAS OLIPHANT Date: January 21, 2003 Page: A11 Section: Op-Ed

WASHINGTON - TIMING BEING NEARLY EVERYTHING IN POLITICS, YOU HAVE TO PITY THE POOR POLITICOS WHO PUT PRESIDENT BUSH ON THE ROAD LAST WEEK SELLING THE SNAKE OIL OF ``MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM'' - RIGHT SMACK IN THE LAIR OF AN ALLEGED MEDICAL MALPRACTITIONER.

It would be funny if the story weren't so horrid.

The political types put Bush at Mercy Hospital in Scranton, Pa., three days after the hospital announced the settlement (for $7 million) of a lawsuit brought by the widow of a 73-year-old man who was a patient at the Mercy outfit in nearby Wilkes-Barre. Frank Thornton died in Mercy's care after doctors inserted a ventilator tube into the man's esophagus instead of his windpipe.

The settlement announcement was far more substantive than Bush's canned pro-insurance company remarks attacking the very ground on which the lawsuit was based. In settling, the hospital said the lawsuit had been "a legitimate and sincere effort to learn the truth."

Mrs. Thornton's attorney, Joseph Quinn, went further. Quinn noted that because of Frank Thornton's age and retirement status, the proposal that Bush has been pushing would have cut him off from the only kinds of reimbursement damages, affecting economic livelihood, that would not be capped.

He also noted that the reality of a $250,000 cap on noneconomic harm (what is often called pain and suffering) would mean that lawsuits like the Thorntons' would be far less likely to be pursued because of the long odds of getting back the resources that the effort would require.

In addition to providing his opponents with ammunition, Bush's visit was also cynical.

It was cynical because Republicans, Democrats, and even Bush aides have no expectation that legislation to help insurance companies avoid so much of the cost and penalty for malpractice will become law this year. That appearance was strictly to aid Bush's hyperactive fund-raisers.

It was cynical because the PR manipulators keep substituting the bland term "liability" for the tough but accurate term, malpractice. Fortunately, the press isn't buying it so far.

It was cynical because the Bush administration and the insurance racket continually lie with "statistics" to support an inaccurate claim that "soaring" jury awards are causing skyrocketing insurance premiums that have led to recent doctor strikes and migrations from certain high-premium states.

In recent months, Bush people got caught putting insurance propaganda on a government Web site, falsely claiming that the "average" jury award had risen by more than 75 percent between 1996 and 1999. In fact, the average rose just 6.4 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars - far less than premiums for health insurance or prices for prescription drugs rose.

And it was cynical because this topic has gotten mixed up with a Republican Party and White House preoccupation with the nascent presidential campaign of Senator John Edward of North Carolina - who made his reputation and wealth as a litigator before seeking office five years ago. Behind the scenes last week, the Bush trip was referred to as "Whack Edwards Day."

It is ridiculously early for this kind of stuff, though the GOP attitude may reflect a fear of the unknown - a possibly fresh-voiced Southerner with Electoral College implications.

The attention, however, has given Edwards an opportunity to respond. For starters, unlike Bush, Edwards is willing to challenge his fellow attorneys and consider capping jury awards and raising court standards to block frivolous actions, but in the context of a bipartisan settlement of the problem. However, there has not been one because the Bush crowd will not consider the insurance side of the issue.

Why are malpractice premiums skyrocketing in the absence of some huge explosion in monetary awards? Granted, according to the government reports, awards rose more than $1.5 billion over the last decade to about $5 billion, but they had declined through September of last year.

The answer lies in the insurance firms' sharply declining investment profits and earnings - down by at least a third last year because of the stock market and lower interest rates on bonds. During the booming 1990s, malpractice premiums were relatively stable - up less than 8 percent to $6.38 billion.

In other words, the shrieks about "trial lawyers" and "runaway juries" seem more like a cover for an effort to boost premiums to cover investment losses.

Bush's behavior is, as Edwards also noted, insider favoritism at its worst. It was true justice to see him get caught in the wrong hospital chain making his inflated claims. For the future, the political world needs to place Frank Thornton's widow ahead of business lobbies, in which case the insurance problem could be fixed quickly and fairly.