New legislation approved by the House Judiciary Committee could mean legal relief for health providers in the form of capped damages and a tighter time frame for lawsuits.

The House Judiciary Committee passed the Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017 (H.R. 1215) on Feb. 28 by a vote of 18-17. The bill, modeled after California’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), would limit noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases to $250,000, restrict contingency fees charged by attorneys, and enforce a 3-year statute of limitations for liability lawsuits from the date of alleged injury. The bill also includes a “fair share” rule in which defendants are liable only for the damages in direct proportion to their percentage of responsibility.

The bill is the first significant medical professional liability reform legislation to be approved by the committee since 2011, said Brian K. Atchinson, president and CEO of PIAA, a national trade association for medical liability insurers.

“Unlike previous federal bills, the bill is focused solely on health care professionals and entities, includes detailed flexibility for states for all its reforms, and is linked with the expenditure of federal dollars to address states’ rights concerns,” Mr. Atchinson said in a statement . “H.R. 1215 will help ensure fair and timely compensation to injured patients, improve access to patient care, and promote affordable and accessible medical liability insurance coverage.”

The proposed statute would apply to any patient who receives medical care provided via a federal program, such as Medicare or Medicaid, or via a subsidy or tax benefit, such as coverage purchased under the Affordable Care Act or its proposed replacement. Medical care paid by employer health plans would fall under the legislation’s umbrella since insurance premiums receive federal tax exemptions. The bill would not preempt state medical malpractice laws that impose damage caps, whether higher or lower than $250,000, nor would the legislation affect the availability of economic damages, according to bill language.

As part of the H.R. 1215, courts could limit how much attorneys receive from a patient’s ultimate award. Specifically, courts would have the power to restrict payments from a plaintiff’s damage recovery to an attorney who claims a financial stake in the outcome by virtue of a contingent fee.

If passed, the bill would work to reduce the practice of defensive medicine and save taxpayer dollars, while increasing access to health care, said House Judiciary Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

“The Protecting Access to Care Act will help keep the rising costs of health care from being passed along to the American people,” Rep. Goodlatte said in a statement . “The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the reforms contained in the bill would lower health care costs by tens of billions of dollars.”

Public Citizen, a consumer rights group, criticized the legislation as misleading to consumers and harmful to patients.

“Proposals to shield providers from liability are nothing but a giveaway to industry,” Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch, said in a statement . “Members supporting this bill would further harm those who are suffering from doctors’ mistakes and abandon the GOP’s supposedly unwavering commitment to state’s rights.”

Jeffrey Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney, said the bill faces an uphill climb and may not make it very far. The question is whether the legislation can pass via the budget reconciliation process (requiring only a simple majority in the Senate) or whether it would be presented outside of that process and would need 60 votes, he said in an interview.

“There are so many moving parts to this bill, I think the likelihood of its being passed as is is low,” said Dr. Segal , founder of Medical Justice, a company that works to deter frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. “The biggest challenge will be whether the Republicans have to get eight Democratic senators to join the bill. To make it more palatable, something will need to give. Such provisions on tort reform are likely to be the first items offered for sacrifice.”

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

Ads