Clinton, Obama Ally on Medical Errors
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

Senator Clinton has forged yet another high-profile political alliance, joining a rising star in the Democratic Party, Senator Obama of Illinois, to introduce legislation encouraging hospitals and doctors to admit to medical errors.
Mrs. Clinton yesterday billed the measure as a way to break the stalemate over medical malpractice reform, but some tort reform advocates said they suspect the approach, which is supported by trial lawyers, may serve to fend off more substantive limits on jury awards.
In a briefing and conference call with journalists, Mrs. Clinton said escalating malpractice insurance premiums are making the issue difficult to ignore. “We’re dealing with a medical malpractice problem in our country that is jeopardizing patient safety,” she said. “These high premiums are forcing many physicians to alter their practice of medicine, and they’re leaving some patients without access to necessary medical care.”
Mr. Obama said a 1999 federal study that found 98,000 Americans die from medical errors each year should prod Congress to act. “That makes medical error the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. That’s just an unacceptable statistic,” he said.
The legislation would establish a voluntary program for doctors and hospitals under which they would promptly notify patients and their families of medical errors. Victims of medical errors would have the option of entering into out-of-court negotiations, where they could receive an apology from the medical providers involved as well as financial compensation. If no agreement was reached within six months, the patient could file suit, but the apology and any offers of compensation would not be admissible in court.
Mrs. Clinton said the bill offers an outlet to escape the long-running debate pitting advocates of caps on damage awards against trial lawyers who contend such limits could leave the gravely injured without adequate compensation. “Senator Obama and I would like to break this gridlock,” she said. “The debate we currently have over the caps on damages really is backwards. We should be looking at ways to help everyone improve patient safety.”
At least 17 states have already passed legislation that allows doctors to make apologies for medical mistakes without worrying that their expressions of remorse could be used against them in court.
The new legislation was endorsed yesterday by the New York Medical Society and by an Illinois-based group that promotes the idea of apologies for medical errors, Sorry Works.
A spokesman for the group, Douglas Wojcieszak, called the concept “the elusive middle-ground solution.” He asserted that most medical malpractice lawsuits are driven not by greed but by anger at unresponsive doctors.
Mr. Wojziecsak said that even without specific protection from the legal system, many hospitals are adopting the practice of a quick apology. While some lawyers warn doctors against admitting to errors, juries often return lower verdicts when they hear that a doctor or hospital apologized, he said.
Advocates for tort reform were lukewarm about the proposed law. A proponent of a malpractice reform measure that passed in Illinois last month, Edward Murnane, said he has no objection to promoting apologies but doubts the federal bill would have much financial impact. “That kind of legislation is not going to cut down the number of lawsuits, and it’s not going to cut down costs,” he said, taking issue with the studies that have shown a reduction in malpractice payouts at hospitals that encourage apologies.
Mr. Murnane also asserted that the new legislation could be a ploy by trial lawyers to stave off broader reform. “The fact it’s supported by the trial lawyers would suggest there’s a lot more to it than meets the eye,” he said.
A spokeswoman for the American Trial Lawyers Association, Chris Mather, said her group is reviewing the legislation.
In recent months, Mrs. Clinton, who is considering a run for the presidency in 2008, has drawn attention for her health care-related work with prominent Republicans, such as Majority Leader Frist and a former House speaker, Newt Gingrich.
Yesterday’s foray with Mr. Obama also turned heads. “This is a powerful partnership,” a political analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, Norman Ornstein, said. Mrs. Clinton is again reaching out to her right in one respect. Mr. Obama voted for the class action reform legislation that passed earlier this year, while Mrs. Clinton voted against it.
Mr. Ornstein said he expected Mr. Obama to be discussed widely as a vice presidential candidate but not selected, at least in the coming race. “He’s got national candidacy written all over him. I suspect it won’t be in 2008,” he said.