Washington Voters: I-330 and I-336 Discussion

[JakeHarley]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello fellow pre-med and med students in Washington!

Next Tuesday we will vote on two very important issues regarding medical malpractice, and you bet UW is going to want you to talk about it in your interview!

Here is the text from the ballot:

Initiative 330-
Initiative measure No. 330 concerns claims for personal injury or death arising from healthcare services. This measure would change laws governing claims for negligent healthcare, including restricting non-economic damages to $350,000 (with exception), shortening time limits for filing cases, limiting repayments to insurers and limiting claimants' attorney fees.

Should this measure be enacted into law?

Initiative 336-
Initiative measure No. 336 concerns medical malpractice, including insurance, healthcare provider licensing, and lawsuits. This measure would: require notices and hearings on insurance rate increases; establish a supplemental malpractice insurance program; require license revocation proceedings after three malpractice incidents, and limit numbers of expert witnesses in lawsuits.

Should this measure be enacted into law?

I feel that these should be bundled into one initiative, since the first appears to protect physicians and insurers at the expense of the patient, and the second holds the physician accountable for their mistakes. Voting either one into law without the other seems imbalanced to me.

At first glance, I-330 appears to be a boon for physicians who would like to practice in rural areas, assuming the cost of malpractice insurance is brought down by this legislation. However, if it is enacted alone, then it is possible that bad doctors will be driven to work in rural areas, and patients in those areas will have no choice but to be treated by them, while having no significant recourse when the physician screws up. I-336 would solve this by taking away the licenses of physicians who kill or maim a patient three times...but since these are seperate measures I am not yet sure how I will vote.

Bottom line is: I am absolutely interested in limiting the cost of malpractice for physicians, but I am also interested in protecting patients, especially in rural settings where they have little choice in their healthcare providers.

Any thoughts? Aspects I haven't considered?

 

[JakeHarley]

http://www.yesoni330.org/documents/I330_Myths.pdf

A pdf published by the Washington State Medical Association. Their postion is "Yes" on 330 and "No" on 336.

An argument against 336 linked from their website:

One of I-336's worst features is a ``three strikes and you're out'' that would prohibit doctors from practicing medicine in the state if a jury finds they have seriously injured or killed three patients in 10 years. While that sounds good, the result likely would prevent even doctors who aren't at fault from defending themselves at trial. Instead, they would choose to settle out of court to avoid taking the chance on a jury verdict that gives them a ``strike.'' Such pressure would likely push settlements higher and higher -- and jack up malpractice insurance rates again.

Those who crafted I-336 refuse to admit that excessive noneconomic awards are not unusual, which would continue if I-336 passes. They also don't acknowledge that there must be a reasonable time limit on filing a malpractice suit.

I-336 proponents say the initiative makes the safety records of hospitals, clinics and doctors more public. That is a good thing, but we don't need to pass a bad initiative to do this. The Legislature can -- and should -- do this when it meets again in January.

 

[almondjoyMD]

I am not the brightest when it comes to political issues (hence why I did not major in it) but another issue that I read about I-336 was that it would discourage peer-reviews and open discussion about problems that occur. The hospital and doctors would be more worried about lawsuits and losing their license if they admit and openly talk about a mistake. This could lead to more cover ups and people ignoring problems that should be dealt with.

On the otherhand one of the reasons against I-336 is that doctors would more easily settle because they don't want the chance to get a "strike' against them. At the same time a study came out that juries often awarded patients because of their injury rather than whether or not the doctor was negligently at fault. With this new system, wouldn't juries realize that there is actually a very real consequence for the doctor and be less likely to assign blame? Maybe this is optimistic of me but that could actually drive down costs as attorneys would be less likely to take cases that don't obviously show a doctor at fault. If you added a cap to what attorneys receive this could increase their hesitancy to take frivolous lawsuits.

The Seattle Times just had an article about these two intiatives today. One thing is clear, if either get passed they are going to land in our court system. In the end I think our legislative branch is going to have to create a law that addresses these two issues. However they are motivated by public opinion as this is what puts them into office. These two intiatives seem more like the two sides drawing a line in the sand and asking voters who they stand with: doctors or lawyers. If I was a public official I would wait to see where most of the voters are (especially if there is a landslide) so that I can adjust my health policy to gain more support. (Please don't jump down my throat if I am way off here but I am more than willing to hear someone who can clear up any misconceptions for me as I am a voter)

 

[dilated]

is this like florida where the lawyers proposed the 3 strikes and you're out initiative as revenge for the malpractice cap?

 

[almondjoyMD]

is this like florida where the lawyers proposed the 3 strikes and you're out initiative as revenge for the malpractice cap?

yup

 

[67192]

http://www.yesoni330.org/documents/I330_Myths.pdf

A pdf published by the Washington State Medical Association. Their postion is "Yes" on 330 and "No" on 336.

An argument against 336 linked from their website:

I don't like the "3 strikes your out" thing; it's just too black and white. And with some medical specialties being at a higher risk for lawsuits, it does make sense that they would want to settle outside of court to avoid a strike, even if they are not at fault! I think the 330 cap on non-economic damages is a good idea. I was wondering, does anyone know anything about other states who have caps on these types of damages; I am wondering, is malpractice insurance lower in these states?

On another note: although I was expecting I-330 and I-336 to come up in my UWSOM interview, it didn't.