By U.S. Representative Jeff Miller

"President Bush says frivolous lawsuits have never helped anyone. Yeah, tell that to my new house in Georgetown." This quote, cited from the Raleigh News and Observer, are the words of Sen. John Edwards, presidential candidate and former trial lawyer, speaking at the annual Gridiron dinner at the Capital Hilton in Washington. Although said in jest, this gives some insight to the mindset of many in Congress who oppose medical professional liability insurance reform.

There is no denying that we have a growing problem in our health-care industry. Doctors are struggling to keep their doors open and Americans are suffering because they cannot find a physician. Enrollment is down in many medical schools because students are shying away from much needed, high skill specialty medicine, such as emergency medicine, neurosurgery and obstetrics. This national crisis is caused by the soaring price of medical professional liability insurance that is driven by expensive litigation on futile claims.

So what should Congress do? The debate took center stage last week on the floor of the House of Representatives when we voted 229 to 196 in favor of H.R. 5, which is legislation modeled after California's quarter-century-old health-care litigation reform. This will cap non-economic damages at $250,000 but does not limit, in any way, an award of economic damages. In other words, anything that can be quantified, such as lost wages, medical costs, therapy or anything with a receipt attached can be rewarded. Nothing about this common-sense approach prevents juries awarding very large amounts to deserving victims of medical malpractice.

The opponents of this method of reform often cite the unfortunate events in North Carolina surrounding Jesica Santillan, the young girl who received the wrong organ transplant at Duke University, as a way to halt the caps. They challenge that this erroneous incident demands punishment to the fullest extent.

While my heart goes out to the family who lost their little girl, I fail to see how an unlimited damages lawsuit would have prevented this situation. The doctor in this case has accepted responsibility for himself and his team. Prior to this event, he had a fine and distinguished medical record. But unlimited liability did not act as a deterrent to error and will not bring this girl back to her family. In fact, we will only see another doctor, who made a horrible and regretful mistake, unable to perform the lifesaving procedures that might save lives in the future.

Many states, including Florida, have similar proposals to that of Congress. I have often heard that opponents feel that this issue should be dealt with at the state level, claiming the federal government will preempt state law. This simply is not true. Provisions in the federal bill will exclude states that already have similar caps. We must also realize that reform at the federal level is necessary to increase workers' access to health care everywhere.

We live in an interconnected economy where businesses operate in many different states. Unlimited liability in some states makes health-care costs go up for all. Unifying this system will help keep insurance rates consistent, which will in turn help employers offer health insurance to more employees.

In America today, it seems easier to sue a doctor than to see a doctor. The litigation process in this county is broken and being taken advantage of by some opportunistic trial lawyers. Medical professionals should not be forced to abandon patients and practices because major insurers have had to reduce coverage or raise premiums to outrageous levels. Every American deserves to have access to a qualified physician, not the bill for fancy homes in Georgetown.

Reprinted with permission from the office of United States Representative Jeff Miller (R-FL).