Editorial: A question on Question 3

Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004 | 9:25 a.m.

Nevada's doctors pushed hard for Question 3 on Tuesday's ballot and voters delivered. "This is a definite win for the physicians of Nevada and for the people of Nevada," a prominent doctor told the Sun.

Whether that is really true, though, remains to be seen.

The question's approval will change Nevada's medical malpractice law by removing exceptions -- for "gross" malpractice and "exceptional circumstances" -- under which victims could receive higher jury awards for pain and suffering. The question also limits attorney fees in malpractice cases, and imposes strictures on victims who bring malpractice suits.

The state passed a tough medical malpractice law in 2002 and now the voters have made it even tougher. The theory is that if victims are limited in their jury awards, insurance companies will lower doctors' medical malpractice premiums, whose increases in recent years have led doctors to threaten to leave the state. With lower premiums, the theory goes, doctors will have an incentive to stay.

Well, the state and voters have done their part. Now it's time for the insurance companies to ante up. Will they lower the premiums? Or will they wait interminably? In our view, all eyes in Nevada's medical malpractice crisis that have previously focused on the doctors and the lawyers and the victims should now be turned toward the insurance companies.

archive