OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics 2005 Mandatory Medical Arbitration: The Wrong Answer to the Rising Cost of Health Care in Utah B. Morgan Few pieces of legislation draw attention from the public, and in the increasingly hurried Utah legislative process legislators themselves have little time to analyze each bill. In 2003, the Utah State Legislature passed Senate Bill 138, which allowed physicians to deny care to patients that refused to sign a mandatory and binding arbitration agreement. In passing the legislation, legislators relied heavily on claims that increasing medical malpractice insurance premiums were due to skyrocketing medical malpractice lawsuits, and inordinate awards from "runaway" juries. In doing so, the true scope and cause of the increasing insurance premiums were overlooked. Just months later Intermountain Health Care adopted mandatory arbitration for more than 170,000 of its patients. The public response to IHC's policy was swift and severe, resulting in the repeal of mandatory arbitration only one year later during the 2004 Legislative Session. While the Legislature should be commended for their quick repeal of mandatory arbitration, given the rushed environment of the Utah legislative process the public can expect such legislative errors to occur in the future Introduction Each January, the Utah State Legislature convenes for 45 consecutive days to address the problems facing the residents of Utah. Legislators are overloaded with information as they sort through the hundreds of proposed pieces °f legislation. What the exact impact that such legislation will have on citizens is given a superficial treatment at best, as the legislature continues its stampede to the end of the session. Within this atmosphere of lawmakers struggling to understand the complex issues, the potential for error in law-making is increased. Legislators are forced to rely more and more heavily on information from lobbyists and colleagues, and when the time to vote on a bill arrives, it has become common for a legislator to look to either a member of leadership or the gallery for an indication of how to vote. Most legislation enacted by the legislature is thought to have little impact on the lives of citizens. The large majority °f the public does not pay close attention to the laws that are Passed, and displays little public reaction to them. Mandatory medical arbitration, permitted by S.B. 138: Medical Malpractice Amendments, however, proved to be the exact °Pposite as public reaction was immediately strong and overwhelmingly negative. Only after the public recognized and reacted to the impact of S.B. 138 did the legislature attempt to revise the legislation. The purpose of this essay is to explore the law making process through the passage and later repeal of S.B. 138. This essay will focus on the inadequate attention given to the issue during the 2003 legislative session, and how health care providers such as IHC implemented an unpopular and controversial mandatory arbitration policy. Agenda Setting: Mandatory Medical Arbitration The turmoil started with, and was based almost solely on, what Mark Fotheringham, spokesman for the Utah Medical Association (UMA), called "some indication that with widespread adoption of arbitration there will be a positive effect on premiums" (Collins 2003, A01). The rising costs of health care not only in Utah, but nationwide, have been a concern to many lawmakers. One of the most commonly cited reasons for the rising cost of health care are medical malpractice lawsuits, and "runaway" juries awarding excessive amounts for damages which allegedly led to exorbitant medical malpractice insurance premiums for doctors. Such was the case with Grant Carter, MD. "After making the hardest decision of his life, Grant Carter had to break the bad news to his patients: He was no longer delivering babies." In giving his reason for leaving the practice he commented, "It became economically unfeasible" (Hamilton 2004c, A01). Virtually all of us have heard about the sudden spikes in 43 |