|
|
Lawmakers Agree, But HMO
Tax Spurs Veto Vow
By John Wagner and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 30, 2004; Page B01
Democratic leaders of the Maryland General Assembly struck a
hard-fought deal on medical malpractice legislation last night but
drew an immediate veto pledge from Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., all
but ensuring that the state's first special legislative session in a
decade would end in a bitter partisan stalemate.
Both the Senate and House of Delegates planned pre-dawn votes on the
legislation, which was stitched together from dueling bills passed
by the two chambers in the session's first two days. The compromise
bill contained a tax on HMOs -- a measure Ehrlich opposes -- to help
offset soaring malpractice insurance bills that doctors say are
driving them under.
Ehrlich (R) said last night that the compromise measure also
included too few of the long-term legal remedies he has sought to
hold down doctors' insurance rates.
"It's light years from where we need to be," Ehrlich said. "I'll
veto it at my convenience."
He must act within six days from the date the legislature presents
him the bill, or it would become law without his signature.
Democratic lawmakers involved in brokering the compromise pledged to
seek an override of Ehrlich's veto, arguing that they had produced
balanced legislation that provides immediate relief to doctors and
an array of long-range solutions aimed at limiting the high cost of
malpractice litigation, which has been blamed for rising insurance
rates.
Lawmakers said that the bill would keep doctors' insurance rate
increases to about 5 percent next year, compared to an average 33
percent increase facing those insured by the state's largest
carrier.
House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) said a veto by
Ehrlich would "defy all logic" and raise questions about the
governor's ability to get anything done in Annapolis.
"This is even more troubling than the slots issue," Busch said,
referring to the governor's two-year effort, thus far unsuccessful,
to persuade the legislature to expand legalized gambling. "This is
an issue where the governor had the support of both houses to make
this happen. If the governor would have had any flexibility . . . he
might have been successful."
The legislature has convened for a special session 40 times in the
past 100 years. Legislative researchers told the Associated Press
that if this one ends with an Ehrlich veto, it would be the first
that failed to produce a law.
The session, which Ehrlich called despite having no firm deal with
legislative leaders, opened Tuesday with discord among Democrats,
who control both chambers. The Senate approved legislation that
contained far fewer legal changes than a House bill, which more
closely tracked proposals made by Ehrlich to curb damages available
to patients for lost wages, medical costs and pain and suffering.
After negotiating informally through the day yesterday, about a
dozen lawmakers huddled in a small conference room last night and
agreed on a number of compromises.
The House, for example, had sought to lower an existing cap of about
$1.6 million on damages for pain and suffering in wrongful death
cases to $650,000. The Senate was willing to lower the cap to
$975,000. They settled on $812,500.
Busch said the House and Senate worked together in a way he hadn't
experienced in some time. "There was no blood," he said. "The
negotiations went very smoothly."
The effort to get a unified bill to the governor cleared a crucial
hurdle yesterday when the House passed its version of the
legislation by a vote of 76 to 46, with every Republican delegate
present voting no. While Republican members said they largely
approved of the House bill, which pushed further than the Senate in
limiting payouts in malpractice lawsuits, they said they could not
stomach the proposed 2 percent tax on HMO premiums.
All day, Democrats sought to portray the governor as more interested
in protecting HMOs than ensuring that Marylanders have access to
their physicians.
"We're not here to protect the corporate profits of HMOs," Busch
told reporters.
Ehrlich and his Republican allies in the legislature floated several
late-hour alternatives to the HMO tax, including tapping the state's
cigarette restitution fund. The fund contains Maryland's share of a
national settlement reached with tobacco companies in 1998. The
state is due to receive $1 billion from the tobacco companies over
10 years.
During Senate debate, Republicans argued that using the restitution
fund could break the stalemate between Democrats and the governor
over the HMO tax.
"It's time to move away from that and find another source," said
Senate Minority Leader J. Lowell Stoltzfus (R-Somerset). "Bottom
line, we're at an impasse."
Stoltzfus said $30 million from the fund is being used each year to
make installment payments to Baltimore lawyer Peter G. Angelos for
his representation of Maryland in national tobacco litigation. Those
payments are scheduled to stop after next year, which would allow
the state to earmark the money for the doctors' fund instead,
Stoltzfus said.
Democrats argued that the money could be better used to pay for
Medicaid and other health programs that are currently supported by
the restitution fund. Busch called the proposal a sign of "their
desperation." The Senate voted the plan down, 26 to 19.
Earlier, the House had vigorously debated the merits of the HMO tax.
Ehrlich's veto threat was invoked repeatedly by Republicans, who
voted in a block against the measure.
"The first rule of medicine is do no harm," said Del. Herbert H.
McMillan (R-Anne Arundel). "This bill does harm."
But Democrats expressed outrage at the governor's position, saying
the so-called HMO tax was merely an attempt to close a 30-year-old
loophole afforded to the insurers before they became so profitable.
Ehrlich spent time this morning lobbying Democrats outside the House
chamber.
He later told reporters that the HMO tax was not the only problem
with the measures. The legal changes in the Senate legislation, he
said, are so weak that they would do "literally nothing" to hold
down malpractice insurance rates. He was less critical of the House
legislation but said it also falls short of a bill drafted by his
administration that was rejected by both chambers of the General
Assembly.
"I am not going to take a phony political victory," Ehrlich said.
Later in the day, Ehrlich said that after vetoing this bill, he will
introduce a new bill in the regular session and that the new bill
will include far more legal reforms than he sought this week.
Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) said that
would be a mistake. "All that does is divide us," he said.
Miller also questioned whether Ehrlich truly wants to see the legal
changes, known as tort reform, enacted.
"He doesn't really care about tort reform," Miller said. "It's just:
'Read my lips, no new tax increases.' "
Staff writer David Montgomery contributed to this report.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
