HR 5, federal regulation of medical malpractice litigation, represents good public policy that would reduce abusive lawsuits and improve health outcomes. But since it would transfer wealth away from lawyers to patients and doctors, the litigation lobby has actively opposed it, and quoted me out of context in that regard. One would certainly prefer that HR 5 be tweaked to unambiguously comply with a vision of the Commerce Clause consistent with, say, the Randy Barnett view. It would be painless to do so. For example, one could structure the legislation to withhold 25% of Medicare funds from states that fail to meet certain medical malpractice litigation standards, rather than federalizing what is (unlike, say, product liability or consumer class actions) largely a local issue: the end result would be even better than this bill. And states that have already implemented reform might be legitimately offended that the benefits of their foresight will be blunted when Congress shunts competing states along; one solution to that might be to limit the reforms to patients who use federally-subsidized medicine, such as Medicare, Medicaid, or PPACA exchanges. But given trial lawyer support for an administration that has propounded PPACA, the trial lawyer opposition to this bill on Commerce Clause grounds is totally disingenuous. Let's see the trial bar lobby for repeal of PPACA, and then they can legitimately complain about HR 5's federalism issues. (Of course, as a political matter, this is largely counting angels on the heads of pins: Harry Reid will never permit this to come to a vote in the Senate, and even if it passed the Senate, Barack Obama would veto this on behalf of his trial-lawyer friends.)
- The Ramifications of EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.
- The Bond That Ties: A Case-Study in Federalism
- A better solution to prison overcrowding
- Joe Nocera nails it
- Full Federal Pre-emption of State Consumer Protection Food Suits
- No relationship between million-dollar-plus medmal payouts and prior record
- What the Gosnell case tells us about medical malpractice efficacy
- Suing doctors and drug companies for addiction to pain medication?
- American Express v. Italian Colors
- Epstein on providing for the poor
- "Supreme Court case involves medical malpractice awards, Medicaid"
- LRANY on New York Trial Lawyers Association political spending
- Copland on magnet courts
- The Philadelphia Story
- Krugman Confused About State vs. Federal Government