G ove r n men t Re lat ions
By reining in the costs of excessive
litigation and out-of-line awards,
Pennsylvania was able to stabilize
insurance rates and stem the loss of
medical practitioners and facilities. The
change to curtail venue shopping brought
constructive balance to the system and
worked even better than intended, an
infrequent occurrence in the world of
implementing and realizing reform. There
has been no hint that dramatic change
was necessary or imminent in 2019.”
SR 20 directs the Legislative Budget and
Finance and Committee (LBFC) to
conduct an analysis of the impact of the
original change brought about by the
recommendation of the Interbranch
Commission in 2002. It also directs the
LBFC to study the impact of the current
proposal by the Civil Rules Procedural
Committee. The LBFC will be required to
hold at least one public hearing and to
provide the General Assembly with its
final report by January 1, 2020. This will
give the legal community, the medical
community, the business community, and
the public ample opportunity to weigh
in with statistics, trends, arguments, and
philosophies.
PDA sent a letter opposing venue
shopping for the following reasons:
• Reverting back to a system in which
personal injury attorneys seek to move
claims to counties that award higher
payouts to plaintiffs is harmful to the
provider community and for patients
• Allowing “venue shopping” will result
in an increase in liability premiums for
providers, which will ultimately drive
up health care costs for consumers.
• Prohibiting venue shopping in 2002
stabilized the medical liability market
and there is insufficient data to warrant
a rescission of this policy.
The Senate passed SR 20 in February
2019 and the LBFC is conducting its study
with the intent of reporting back to the
General Assembly in January 2020.
N OVEM BER/DECEM BER 2019 | P EN N SYLVAN IA DEN TAL JOURNAL
9