In Brief: Signatures For Micra Proposition Submitted
Signatures For MICRA Proposition Submitted
The Santa Monica-based advocacy group Consumer Watchdog has gathered 840,000 signatures to place on the November ballot a proposition that would raise the current cap on noneconomic damaged related to medical malpractice.
The proposition is also tied to proposed random drug testing for physicians, which Consumer Watchdog claims is necessary because substance abuse by doctors can lead to medical malpractice and the endangerment of patients.
“Voters should have the right to enact the patient safety protections the legislature has denied them for decades,” said Bob Pack, who brought the signatures to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's office to file earlier this week. Pack allegedly lost his child due to malpractice connected to an intoxicated physician.
Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law in 1975 the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. It capped medical malpractice damages at $250,000, a sum that has not been adjusted for inflation. If passed by the voters, the cap would be adjusted upward to about $1.2 million.
The California Medical Association has been staunchly opposed to raising the cap. “If a sufficient number (of signatures) are validated, an initiative that would increase costs, limit access to care and threaten the existence of community clinics across California will be appearing on the November ballot,” a statement posted on its website said this week.
The California Secretary of State requires about 500,000 signatures to place the initiative on the ballot in November.
State Gets Failing Grade For Price Transparency
California has received a failing grade on healthcare price transparency, according to a new examination of state-by-state practices by the Catalyst for Payment Reform and the Health Care Initiatives Improvement Institute.
However, the Golden State was not alone. Forty-five states received failing grades. Massachusetts, which has mandated price transparency reforms in the past year, received the highest grade, a “B,” along with Maine. Colorado, Vermont and Virginia all received “C” grades.
“Finding objective, timely, and comprehensive information on the cost of care is almost completely unattainable for consumers, with a few exceptions, and many of the existing reporting tools have a long way to go to be user-friendly,” the report said.
California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, which provides hospital chargemaster prices to the general public on its website, received poor marks for the data's utility ease of use and scope.
Price transparency has become an issue of greater concern in the past year, since Steven Brill's 2013 article in Time magazine that concluded that hospital chargemaster prices are wildly inflated but usually only used when charging – and collecting payments – from uninsured or underinsured patients.
