IF you've been watching television ads for Initiative 330, you might believe there is a crisis in medical-malpractice juries awarding lavish sums to injured patients.

I-330, backed mostly by doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, would cap non-economic damages to patients who are injured by a medical professional and limit attorneys fees. Beyond actual monetary damages such as lost wages, a plaintiff would not be able to collect any more than $350,000 for a medical error. This editorial page opposes I-330 as well as Initiative 336, which deals with malpractice in a different way — more public accountability for bad doctors and insurance reform.

I-330 proponents say the caps are necessary to bring down medical-malpractice premiums, which is driving doctors to leave the profession, or our state.

But here's the rub: state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler's latest Medical Malpractice Closed Claim Study suggests there is no crisis. The second annual report summarizes 10 years of data from five top medical-malpractice insurers that cover more than 90 percent of the state's physicians and surgeons.

"The results of this survey suggest that medical-malpractice claim payments have stabilized over the last few years, which should be good news for physicians and surgeons — at least in the near term," he said.

The survey has some limitations — it doesn't include reports from companies that insure doctors in high-risk specialties or those who work for self-insured companies.

But Kreidler proposed a remedy for the survey's shortcomings. He will be requesting the Legislature give him authority to require data from those other sources to give a more complete picture of what's happening in medical malpractice.

That's a good idea that would go a long way toward ensuring major health-policy decisions are based on actual data, not compelling television ads.