Reject both doctor's and lawyer's initiatives

THE rhetoric surrounding Initiative 330 and Initiative 336 is testament to why such complex issues — tort reform, insurance reform and patient safety — should not be on the ballot.

The campaigns are battles of anecdotes — always compelling, sometimes misleading: doctors leaving the state in droves because of high medical-malpractice premiums; patients being harmed by bad doctors not held accountable. There is truth in many of the stories, but the sound bites and posturing obscure responsible solutions. The Seattle Times recommends voters reject both initiatives.

Both are aimed at a medical-malpractice system that begs for tweaking. Both initiatives contain some good ideas. But each is drafted by special-interest groups.

Initiative 330, supported by doctors, is billed as the "Health Care Access Initiative." The sponsors' premise is that if malpractice lawsuits and awards are limited, health-care providers won't have to pay as much for liability insurance and more will stay in business.

Proponents talk about a medical malpractice "crisis," but the state insurance commissioner says there is no crisis — premiums, which follow cycles, are now coming down. A state program to assist doctors in finding insurance was shut down this year — because of lack of business.

I-330 limits malpractice awards for non-economic damages to $350,000 for medical negligence — not $1 million as ads deceptively claim (the difference comes with the addition of a separate non-medical error). It also limits how much attorneys can collect of an injured patient's award.

An untenable flaw in I-330 is the law would permit care providers to require that patients agree to mandatory binding arbitration if they are dissatisfied with their care.

Initiative 336 — the measure and the campaign — is more credible than I-330, but it also has problems. I-336 would hold medical professionals more publicly accountable, create more public oversight of liability insurance rates and screen out frivolous lawsuits by requiring certificates of merit from qualified experts.

All are reasonable approaches, but a troubling aspect of this initiative is its three-strikes requirement. Doctors with three jury verdicts over 10 years lose their licenses. That potentially could encourage more settlements, driving accountability further underground.

Both initiatives might pass — a horrendous way to tinker with such complicated, nuanced issues. Regrettably, the state lawmakers passed on the chance to craft a higher-road public policy, deciding to let these two unvetted measures go to the ballot without reasonable, refined alternatives. Voters should reject initiatives 330 and 336, each of which has fatal flaws. The Legislature can — and should — do better.