LEGISLATION; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL MALPRACTICE; PATIENTS' RIGHTS;

MALPRACTICE;

You asked whether the legislature has ever considered legislation to establish a patient compensation fund.

Based on an examination of the legislative record index and the legislative records available through the General Assembly’s computerized search system it appears that since 1984, three bills have been introduced to create a patient compensation fund.

In 1987, a legislator introduced HB 5343, An Act Establishing a Patients’ Compensation Pool. It was referred to the Insurance and Real Estate Committee. It appears that no public hearing was held and no further action was taken.

The bill required the creation of a compensation pool to provide compensation to victims of medical malpractice. It required each licensed physician practicing in Connecticut to provide annual proof of medical malpractice insurance as part of his annual license renewal. The coverage could no less than the amount established by statute. The pool would be available to compensate victims of malpractice for awards that exceeded the physician’s insurance. The pool would be funded by annual assessments levied against all licensed practicing physicians by the state treasurer who would be custodian of the pool. A copy of the bill is enclosed.

During the 2003 session the Appropriations Committee raised SB 1166, (File 673) An Act Concerning Methods of Funding Medical Malpractice Awards and Disproportionate Share Payments. It required the Appropriations and Public Health committees to examine various methods to reduce medical malpractice insurance premiums through the use of excess liability funds to pay certain medical malpractice claims on behalf of fund participants. The bill required the committees to submit their findings and recommendations to the General Assembly on or before January 1, 2004, and annually thereafter.

No one testified at the public hearing that was held on April 29. The bill was unanimously reported out on May 13. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee on May 22, which voted it out on May 27. Subsequently, the Senate moved the bill to the foot of the calendar and took no further action on it.

Also during the 2003 session, a bill was referred to the Public Health Committee, Proposed Bill 522, An Act Creating an Excess Liability Fund for Medical Malpractice Awards. No public hearing was held on it and no further action was taken. The bill established an excess liability fund where (1) participating health providers would purchase privately available medical malpractice insurance in the amount of $ 250,000; (2) participating health providers would pay 35% of that premium amount into an excess liability fund; (3) claims made against a participating provider, in excess of between $ 250,000 and $ 1. 5 million dollars, would be paid by the fund; and (4) health provider participation would be voluntary.

GC: ts