Note: This column is the first of a two part series about health care reform.

Those around… Note: This column is the first of a two part series about health care reform.

Those around the nation who have been increasingly unable to afford healthcare over the past few years should notice that George W. Bush, along with other Republicans, is trying to alleviate the problem.

They should scrutinize Bush’s methods, but not his motives.

A bill awaiting the Senate’s consideration would, if passed, limit awards for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases to $250,000.

Doctors are having almost as much trouble paying the increasing premiums for malpractice insurance as their patients are having paying for health insurance. The former is one of the causes of the latter; in order to pay malpractice premiums, doctors simply charge their patients more.

But many doctors find their practices less than viable, which has led to protests, like a few here in Pennsylvania, where doctors have picketed or closed their practices. On April 28, Philadelphia-area doctors closed their practices, shrewdly calling it a “protest” – it is illegal for doctors to strike.

And, according to a Feb. 19, 2003 article in the Arizona Daily Star, “Doctors in Bisbee, Ariz., stopped delivering babies last year in response to a 500 percent increase in their premiums.”

Resultantly, Arizona resident Melinda Sallard ended up giving birth to her child in her car, on the side of the road. The nearest hospital was some 40 miles away, according to the article.

Sallard is something of a poster child for the Republican contingent supporting the bill. She has been portrayed as the victim of rising malpractice costs.

The thinking, then, is that reducing malpractice premiums will result in lower doctor’s bills, and, therefore, lower health care costs for the nation as a whole.

Right. To describe this as a “trickle-down” effect would be to make Bush seem Reaganesque, which I’m comfortable with. This assumes that doctors and insurance providers, on the whole, don’t want to make more money and would gladly pass their savings down to the consumer. I’m not comfortable assuming that.

Such an assumption is rash, and the facts do not seem to bear out the conclusion that Bush has drawn.

According to an article published June 30 by U.S. News ‘ World Report, limits already been imposed in 19 states “have failed to prevent increasing premiums,” and “in states with caps [on malpractice awards], malpractice premiums actually grew faster than in nearly three dozen states without them.”

This is not to say that such award limits always exacerbate the problem – in California, a cap equivalent to Bush’s plan is in place, and, according to a June 30 article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, malpractice premiums in Los Angeles are half that of equivalent coverage in Philadelphia. However, California also has legislation limiting attorneys’ fees for malpractice cases.

Bush is on the right track – the issue of malpractice expenses needs to be addressed – but certainly not this way.

Aside from the fact that it simply won’t work, the plan would be indiscriminate, punishing legitimate claimants as much as it eliminated the effects of “frivolous” lawsuits.

In the case of Samuel Desiderio, for instance, the punishment would be severe.

Desiderio was born with a congenital condition called hydrocephalus, an ailment that necessitated the insertion of a shunt to alleviate pressure on his brain. In October 1990, shortly before his fourth birthday, Desiderio underwent an operation at New York Hospital to restore the shunt. The operation went awry, and Desiderio suffered brain damage. He now has a permanent tracheostomy, receives food from a gastrostomy tube and suffers from a disorder causing seizures that stop his breathing. He must be resuscitated after each seizure, which sometimes happens multiple times in a day.

The defendants, Dr. Robert L. Ochs and others, did not contest the charges of malpractice, but later appealed the amount of the award.

The New York Court of Appeals recently upheld the award given by a jury, in which the jury estimated that medical costs for Desiderio’s life span would total $12 million in current U.S. dollars, and some $50 million when inflation is taken into account.

This figure was calculated for an expected life span of 55 years, 16 of which have elapsed, meaning that, on average, Desiderio’s would have $1.28 million per year for medical expenses – not so much, when you consider that he needs constant nursing care.

That’s only, however, if one includes the $4.5 million that Desiderio was awarded for both past and future pain and suffering.

Situations like Desiderio’s provide the most compelling reason why Bush’s plan will not work, even if it succeeds in reducing health care costs for the American people.

If Marty Flaherty were deathly ill, he’d pull the plug and pass the savings on to you. How’s that for health care reform? E-mail him at