Search legislation

Most Recent Comments

1) Journal statement by Senator Shugars  by Admin001 on October 26, 2001 
First of all, this conference report is a true compromise. A number of us believe that it didn’t matter where you would go for medical services or dental services. If both the provider and the patient agreed that there was no compensation, the level of civil liability would be gross negligence and willful misconduct, and that would be what a number of us believed in. But we compromised with what Senator North came up with, and I ‘m willing to support this. But I think the bottom line is this if you vote for this, you’re helping access for people who are economically disadvantaged who do not have insurance or don’t have the resources to get health care and attention. If you vote for it, you’re helping those people because health care providers—it doesn’t matter who they are—have a feeling that there’s a stigma, there’s a cloud over there that you’re going to get sued if the outcomes aren’t just perfect. So what we’re trying to do is be compassionate. We’re trying to help people who cannot afford it, so I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
Reply

2) Journal statements by Senator Smith  by Admin001 on October 26, 2001 
I rise to oppose the adoption of the conference report. I know that Senator North has worked very hard on this issue over the years. And I have tried to enlighten the Senator on the basic problem with this piece of legislation, and that is that under this bill we establish a dual standard of protection under the law here in the state of Michigan—that is a constitutional violation. We are essentially saying that if you are poor and if you cannot afford your own health care insurance and the clinic to which you go does not have its health care insurance coverage for medical malpractice insurance, you, by waiving your rights, will therefore not be able to sue should you suffer harm from your treatment. The free clinics in the state of Michigan have found that the bill, while it might help with recruitment, really doesn’t address a problem they have, which is medical malpractice insurance. The majority of them carry some form of insurance, and working with Senator Joel Gougeon in this year’s budget, we actually put $25,000 into the budget that would allow all of the free clinics in Michigan to buy very low-cost medical malpractice insurance to make sure that their physicians who practice in their facilities are indeed covered. So it leaves people who are referred outside of the free clinics exposed, but it covers those people who get their primary health care treatment in free clinics. This is an unnecessary bill. It is, I believe, unconstitutional, and it does begin to establish a standard of care that says we can be less careful of the poor than we are with the rest of the citizens of this state. I urge my colleagues to reject the conference report. Senator Smith’s second statement is as follows: You know, people can waive liability. People do it in contracts for the sale of power equipment, and they do it in all other areas. They cannot waive their constitutional protection under the law. This bill does it. This bill has real critical problems in terms of fairness, in terms of coverage of those who are least able to protect themselves. This is a great concern here. I know it was done with good intentions, and I know it was designed to help encourage retired physicians to come into the free clinics to work. All they need to know is that the clinics in which they would work already have medical malpractice insurance that was either in place, and has been in place in those clinics for years, or can be acquired with the help of state dollars, so that there is coverage. We don’t need with this bill to create a dual standard of care here in the state of Michigan. I urge my colleagues to reject the conference report.
Reply

3) Journal statement by Senator North  by Admin001 on October 26, 2001 
Today, we are at the culmination of nearly six years of work for me and over a decade on this issue in total. I believe we have found a solution in this conference report that will increase access to primary care for our most needy, the uninsured and the underinsured, and at the same time, provide a legal remedy in case the worst happens. By balancing these two, oftentimes competing interests, we have come up with a bill that will alleviate the concerns on the part of the providers who volunteer their time from frivolous lawsuits. Oftentimes, it is the fear of a lawsuit rather than its practicality that drives the uneasiness by these health care professionals. It is my belief that the conference report before you today provides the greatest benefit to the indigent population in Michigan. Without the willingness by health care providers to volunteer, access to affordable primary care is almost nonexistent. Making proactive health maintenance unheard of among this population oftentimes results in patients not receiving care until it becomes an emergency and extremely costly. This is not good health management policy nor is it good economic policy. By providing greater access to primary care, it is my hope that indigent visits to the emergency room will decrease, resulting in healthier patients and minimizing the financial burdens on the health care facilities. We have made it a priority to give the patient as many protections as possible. First, by keeping the clinic liable. Second, by limiting the procedures eligible to those who do not require general anesthesia and are nonemergent. Third, requiring a written disclosure of not only the limited liability, but that the care is uncompensated. Fourth, requiring a signature from the patient acknowledging that they have been provided this disclosure. Providing access to health care to those who normally would not receive it is a noble cause. I urge the body to support greater access to health care for the indigent by voting in favor of the conference report before you today. And, Mr. President, I appreciate yours and Senator Shugars’ service on the conference committee.
Reply

View Full Conversation