Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2004 | 9:16 a.m.
About 40 people gathered Monday to argue that the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce should support two ballot measures aimed at reforming the insurance industry.
Questions 4 and 5, which will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot, have been under fire from both the chamber and doctors groups that argue the initiatives would erase recent efforts to change medical malpractice laws.
The cost of medical malpractice insurance has increased dramatically for many doctors in the state, despite caps on noneconomic damages enacted by the Nevada Legislature in 2002.
Questions 4 and 5, however, would lower insurance rates for doctors and many other businesses that are members of the chamber, argued Carmen Cashman, a spokeswoman for the People for a Better Nevada, the group pushing the initiatives.
Cashman said she doesn't understand why the chamber would oppose a measure that would ultimately benefit its members.
"People, when they read it, will realize this is about insurance reform," she said.
Christina Dugan, director of government affairs for the chamber, said the group is concerned that Questions 4 and 5 would actually drive more doctors out of Nevada.
The chamber supports Question 3, the so-called Keep Our Doctors in Nevada initiative, which would place a firm cap on noneconomic damages at $350,000.
The state legislature enacted a $350,000 cap in 2002, but it allows exceptions. Doctors say the exceptions have prevented insurance companies from lowering premiums.
Dugan said the chamber is most concerned that its business members and their employees have access to quality health care.
"It's about the health care issue and the importance of providing that for Nevadans," she said.
Cashman said she's convinced that the best way to help doctors is to require insurance companies to lower their insurance by 20 percent, stop them from raising rates unless they can prove they are losing money, and punish attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits.
Questions 4 and 5 would address those solutions, she said, adding that proponents of those initiatives "feel sorry for our doctors" and "want to keep them here."
The state already tried to lower insurance rates by enacting a cap, but it hasn't helped, said Angela McBride, a legal assistant who attended the rally Monday.
"The insurance industry hasn't responded with lower insurance rates," she said.
Jeremy Beasley, a paralegal for a Las Vegas law firm that deals mostly with construction-defect cases, said he attended the rally Monday because he's sick of hearing that trial lawyers are the only ones who support Questions 4 and 5.
"Insurance companies are the big businesses," he said. "They have just as many attorneys representing them."
Dugan said Question 3 doesn't simply put a cap on noneconomic damages. It also stipulates that parties in a suit cannot be held jointly liable, meaning that a doctor only has to pay his or her own share of a malpractice settlement. Right now, any one party could be held liable for the entire settlement if one doctor doesn't have enough insurance to cover his or her share.
And Question 3 gives patients just one year, instead of two years, to file a lawsuit after discovering an injury.
archive
