By Criston Skinner

I-330 is not about “doctors versus lawyers – the age old rivalry.” You have to hand it to the big insurance companies, though, for cleverly creating that “doctor vs. lawyer” illusion as a means of promoting their cause. What better way to promote I-330 (and its positive effect on profits) than to characterize the battle over I-330 as one between lawyers and physicians? After all, most of us would agree that even the clumsiest proctologist is less despicable than your spouse’s divorce attorney.

It’s troubling to hear physicians blindly recite the mantra of I-330 while insisting that those who oppose them are simply greedy “liars.” (Or is that “greedy lawyers?”) There is nothing intellectual or democratic about name calling as a substitute for honest debate. These days, social and economic issues are rarely simple enough to be decided by who yells the loudest.

Before you vote on this or any initiative measure, I urge you to tune out the name calling and ask a few hard questions.

Firstly, why is I-330 presented as an initiative for voter consideration? The answer is simple. For years, the insurance industry, together with state and national medical associations, have been unable to convince your elected officials that caps on damages or curtailing the right to a jury trial have anything to do with the amount of malpractice premiums or quality of health care. Since the legislature wouldn’t buy this unsupportable argument, the insurance groups and medical associations turned to professional signature gatherers and a slick advertising campaign to try and achieve what they could not accomplish in Olympia after years of lobbying.

At one time initiatives were a legitimate way for the silent majority to make its voice heard. However, the original premise behind initiatives was that a large number of the citizenry would sign the petition because of their personal commitment to the cause. That was before the days of paid, professional signature gatherers haunting the parking lot of every major retailer. Instead of a grass roots message from the people, initiatives are now rarely anything more than a tool for those special interest groups that can afford to pay what it takes to gather the signatures required; and then buy the television ads to promote their cause – thus, the birth of I-330.

Secondly, is there really an alarming “explosion” of lawsuits and judgments against physicians in this state? Not according to the insurers’ own records. In the March 6, 2005, edition of the Seattle Post Intelligencer, columnist Thomas Shapley provided the following information in an article entitled “Gouging, Numbers Belie Medical Malpractice ‘Crisis’ Claims”:

The insurance commissioner’s office asked the top five medical malpractice insurers to supply information on claims that were closed between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 2004. These five insurers account for more than 90 percent of the regulated malpractice market for the state’s physicians and surgeons, according to Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler.

The 10-year period produced just over 10,000 closed claims. That number is probably a good place to start. Ten years, 10,000 claims. That’s 1,000 a year.

Of those 10,000 cases, juries decided in favor of plaintiffs in just 50 cases. Not 50 percent of cases, but 50 cases total. Runaway juries? Lottery justice? Based on normal win-loss ratios in cases that go to trial, the final jury score was apparently patients: 50 and docs: 307.

In all, 3,248 of the 10,000 cases were closed without plaintiffs getting a dime and without defendants having to spend a dime to defend themselves. In about 6,100 of the cases, defendants incurred costs for attorneys and expert witnesses. But it was money well spent. Defendants prevailed in 61 percent of those cases.

Only about 2,700 claims – 27 percent – resulted in any payment to the injured party.

Does I-330 guarantee that doctors’ malpractice premiums will go down? Absolutely not. There is nothing in this initiative that delivers what the physicians tell us is the reason they support this concept – lower insurance premiums. Ask any physician if they are guaranteed a reduction in their premium if I-330 is approved and they will have to tell you “no.”

In fact, in Washington, malpractice premiums have gone down in the last two years – but only because insurance companies were caught “mid gouge.” Washington’s Insurance Commissioner, Kreidler, announced in March of this year that he had ordered the state’s largest medical malpractice insurer, Physicians Insurance and its affiliate, Western Professional Insurance Company, to refund more than $1.3 million plus interest in excess premiums charged in 2003. Nearly 2,400 doctors were entitled to premium refunds as high as $4,681. The average refund was about $534.

So who benefits from this initiative if it doesn’t really improve the doctors’ bottom line? The insurance industry does – not the doctors and certainly not the injured patients.

I-330 is a bad idea which only benefits the insurance industry. That is why the editorial boards of several major newspapers in this state oppose it. On Oct. 30, 2005, the Seattle Post Intelligencer had this to say about I-330:

The most outrageous provision in I-330 is that before treating you, issuing you health insurance or a prescription, providers could require you to sign a contract saying: ‘You are giving up your right to a jury or court trial.’

Forcing people to sign their rights away as a condition of treatment is something this state’s feisty, independent voters should never accept.

Not just no, but hell no.”

Don’t be fooled by the insurance industry and their effort to improve profits at the expense of injured people – vote NO on I -330.

Christon Skinner is an attorney practicing in Oak Harbor.