HARRISBURG, Pa. – The U.S. House of Representatives could vote this week on a bill that opponents say would prevent people from seeking justice in court if they, or a family member, were injured or killed by a medical provider, drug or device.

Known as the Protecting Access to Care Act, the bill was rushed through committee without a public hearing.

According to Dean Clancy, a partner with the public policy consulting firm Adams Auld LLC, the package of medical malpractice reforms would help doctors and hurt patients. He contends it's unconstitutional.

"The bill imposes a number of barriers, making it harder for patients to file a medical injury claim, and to get compensated for that claim if they manage to prevail in court," he states.

House Resolution 1215 also would apply to claims of neglect or abuse in nursing homes.

Supporters of the bill say it would improve access to care by reducing extra testing, so-called defensive medicine, and excessive jury awards to patients.

But Clancy points to research showing that medical malpractice damage awards have very little effect on the cost of health care.

"Medical malpractice probably accounts for less than 2.5 percent of all health care costs,” he asserts. “So, there's actually not much money to be saved in this area."

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would save taxpayers about $5 billion a year, but Clancy says that's based on outdated research.

He adds the bill would override laws in all 50 states that govern how disputes between residents of the states are resolved – an area where Congress has no constitutional jurisdiction.

"It even overrides state constitutional provisions that the people of the states have added to their constitutions in order to protect patients, and people who are injured by medical negligence," he points out.

HR 1215 is broadly opposed by patient safety advocates, veterans' groups, Democrats and many conservatives.






get more stories like this via email

The new congressional map - crafted by Gov. Ron DeSantis and approved by the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature last month, scatters more than 370,000 Black voters from being able to choose their representative - and a circuit judge says that's unconstitutional.

The ruling, which is expected to be appealed, came as no surprise to observers including those who say they tried to work on a more fairly drawn map.

State Rep. Kelly Skidmore - D-Boca Raton - is a ranking member of the House Congressional Redistricting Subcommittee.

"The court recognized that this was a diminishment of Black representation in Congress," said Skidmore, "and there is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and our Fair Districts Amendment."

The challenge focuses on a north Florida district now held by Rep. Al Lawson - D-Tallahasse. The district runs from Jacksonville west more than 200 miles to Gadsden County and nearly half of its population is Black.

Lawson says he's pleased with the ruling, while the DeSantis administration issued a statement vowing to appeal.

Skidmore said everyone knew what DeSantis was proposing was unconstitutional.

She said she warned her colleagues during debate but ultimately the Republican leadership in both the House and Senate kowtowed and refused to challenge the governor with a new map of their own after he vetoed theirs.

"When I went to school, you didn't get to grade your own work," said Skidmore, "You don't get to draw the map and then get to approve the map that you drew. That's not how government is supposed to work. There were no checks and balances in that process."

The move by DeSantis prompted mostly Black lawmakers to stage a sit-in protest during the vote for the maps.

The order from the judge expected today or Friday will likely replace the DeSantis map with one of the two that the Legislature put in the bill the governor received in March.

Judge Layne Smith says he plans to follow the state constitution in his ruling. The saga is expected to reach Florida's conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

As the Minnesota Legislature considers new police-reform proposals, the discussions coincide with results from a state investigation of the Minneapolis Police Department. Groups pushing for change say a meaningful response is needed.

Last week, Minnesota's Human Rights Department announced Minneapolis police have engaged in a pattern of race discrimination that violates state statute.

The probe started right after the murder of George Floyd. Johnathon McClellan - president of the Minnesota Justice Coalition - said his group isn't anti-police, but he hopes the findings convince those who are skeptical of reform to reconsider their stance.

"If the protests weren't enough for you," said McClellan, "if the death of George Floyd and Daunte Wright or Winston Smith wasn't enough for you, we hope that the report is enough for you to at least look at this."

His group backs legislation that sets deadlines for police to release body-camera footage. Another plan would extend the civil statute of limitations in deadly-force cases.

Those are part of a larger House public safety plan. However, Senate leaders have emphasized other public safety priorities, including police officer recruitment.

In Minneapolis, accountability groups say community voices should be included as the state works with the city on a consent decree to establish changes. For Minnesotans elsewhere, McClellan said he hopes the report resonates with them, even if they haven't been victimized by police.

"This should have us all question what we believe and what our role is, in a society and as a people," said McClellan.

The Minnesota Justice Coalition has asked federal officials for investigations into the practices of other agencies, including the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

The group suspects questionable methods have carried over into other jurisdictions, but no decision has been made yet to authorize those probes.

Separately, the U.S. Justice Department continues its own review of MPD in the wake of George Floyd's murder.

Good-government groups are pushing back against a bill requiring voters to fill out a ballot which could later be thrown out if they are missing documentation when they register to vote for the first time on Election Day.

Currently, Granite Staters can sign an affidavit attesting their identity if they are missing needed documents. They need both a state ID to prove identity and age and a passport, birth certificate or naturalization document to prove citizenship. If they do not follow up with the documentation later, they can be investigated for fraud.

Proponents say the bill is for security, but audits have found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Liz Tentarelli, president of the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, said the bill is a proposed solution to a problem that does not exist.

"I think people would be really surprised if they said, 'Well, yes, we have same-day voter registration, but you must have these documents. You've got to prove identity, age, where you live, and citizenship.' How many people carry citizenship papers around with them?" Tentarelli asked.

Tentarelli noted only people who are registering for the first time on Election Day would need to fill out affidavit ballots, which she noted are essentially provisional ballots. The legislation has been passed by the state Senate, and is now before the House.

She added the bill also raises privacy concerns because so few would have to fill out provisional ballots, and clerks would have to go through and invalidate the ones from people who did not follow up with documentation.

"Where's the privacy of that ballot?" Tentarelli remarked. "And the sponsor said, 'Well, if that person voted fraudulently, all rights to privacy are canceled.' Well, did that person vote fraudulently or did that person just become a normal person and forget to do something within the time limit?"

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu has expressed "hesitation" about the bill, saying it might delay results, and arguing New Hampshire's election system works.

New Hampshire is currently one of a handful of states not using provisional ballots. Provisional ballots are required by federal law, but the state got an exemption for having same-day voter registration at the time of the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.