Bill Overview
Title: ACCESS Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes rules for health care lawsuits where some amount of coverage or care was provided or paid for by a federal program, regardless of the number of other parties to the claim. The bill sets a three-year maximum statute of limitations from the date of the injury, subject to specific exceptions. Further, noneconomic damages (e.g., damages for pain and suffering) are limited to a maximum of $250,000. The bill permits courts to supervise and limit contingent fees paid to attorneys and sets a maximum contingent fee percentage based on a downward sliding scale as a damages increase. The bill permits either party to introduce evidence of collateral source benefits (e.g., workers’ compensation programs, accident insurance coverage, or other future benefit). Statements by a health care provider expressing fault, sympathy, or apology are, however, inadmissible as evidence of liability. Additionally, a plaintiff must give 90 days’ notice to the health care provider before filing a lawsuit. When filing a health care lawsuit, plaintiffs also must simultaneously submit an affidavit in support of the claim from a health care professional who meets the standards for an expert witness that are provided in the bill. This bill generally does not preempt state laws that impose additional limits on health care liability claims.
Sponsors: Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-8]
Target Audience
Population: people using federal health coverage and impacted by medical malpractice
Estimated Size: 145000000
- The bill affects health care lawsuits where coverage is provided by a federal program, indicating it impacts people using federal health coverage such as Medicare and Medicaid.
- A significant target population will be those who experience medical injuries and seek noneconomic damages exceeding $250,000.
- The three-year statute of limitations and required advance notice influence patients pursuing late or surprise medical injury claims.
- The admissibility of collateral sources will affect patients who could receive benefits from other sources, potentially reducing their claims.
- Health care providers and legal professionals involved in malpractice and liability cases are also impacted by the new guidelines and fee structures.
Reasoning
- Due to budget constraints, the policy will heavily focus on impacting cases directly involving federal health coverage, such as Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, who might be affected by medical malpractice claims.
- The $10,000,000 budget for year 1 necessitates targeting processes that will curtail large volumes of claims with high noneconomic damages within federal healthcare settings.
- Given the wide potential target population, from those filing medical malpractice to the legal professionals handling these cases, the effect of the policy will vary across individuals, with some experiencing no change and others seeing a significant reduction in potential legal outcomes or fees.
- People from various demographics and socio-economic backgrounds will be represented in the simulated interviews, considering their different interactions with federal healthcare.
- While people may see reduced compensation from lawsuits, the policy could lead to faster resolutions and reduced legal fees, which might offset well-being impacts for some individuals.
Simulated Interviews
retired (Florida)
Age: 72 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might make it harder for people like me to seek full compensation for medical errors, especially with the reduced timeframe to file a case.
- I worry the $250,000 cap on pain and suffering damages won't be enough if something similar happens again.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
physician (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could reduce frivolous lawsuits against medical practitioners and help lower my malpractice insurance costs.
- The introduction of notice and affidavit requirements is a positive step towards reducing unnecessary litigation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
legal assistant (California)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy may reduce the number of cases our firm is willing to take on due to the capped damages and increased filing requirements.
- However, it may lead to better upfront case evaluation and potentially quicker resolutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
legal consultant (New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy effectively balances patient rights and protections for healthcare providers, potentially lowering the burden of legal costs.
- I believe the limitation on attorney fees and noneconomic damages is fair but might deter some from pursuing legitimate claims.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
nurse (Ohio)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy may help focus on genuine malpractice issues by filtering out weaker cases.
- There might be a concern about patients hesitating to file complaints due to perceived complexity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
healthcare policy advisor (Washington)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could standardize the litigation process and bring about more stable insurance premium levels over the long run.
- Stakeholders, including patients, might feel more assured of a streamlined, less costly legal process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
retired nurse (Illinois)
Age: 66 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear this will make it difficult for individuals to pursue fair compensation for healthcare negligence.
- Limiting noneconomic damages could devalue patient suffering and care concerns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
paralegal (Arizona)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There will likely be a decrease in my firm's caseload, but the cases we handle might see prompt resolution given the set processes.
- The policy promotes more responsible attorney-client engagements from the onset.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
hospital administrator (Georgia)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hospitals like ours may benefit from lower legal expenses which can redirect resources towards patient care improvements.
- Some patients may feel unfairly limited by this policy when it comes to pursuing harm compensation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
software developer (Michigan)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who once considered legal action for malpractice, this policy might have deterred my case from being viable.
- I feel the limitation on damages makes it harder to justify the mental and emotional toll malpractice takes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $9000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $18000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $16000000)
Year 10: $7000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $14000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- State laws that impose additional limits on healthcare liability claims may cause variable effects across different states.
- The changes in contingent fees and limitations on noneconomic damages could shift litigation strategies, potentially changing the volume of cases.
- Collateral source benefits admissions could reduce overall claims but require careful coordination between benefit providers.
- Implementation costs for new administrative processes associated with the lawsuit guidelines might offset some savings.