|
Senator Adam
Kline
Legislative Blog
March 4, 2006
Finally! A Workable Compromise to Address Medical Malpractice
I’m very pleased with the recent passage of HB 2292, the
medical malpractice bill. After years of contentious debate, we finally
passed comprehensive legislation to increase patient safety, insure the
fairness of the civil justice system, and ease the burden on physicians
of fluctuating medical malpractice insurance premiums.
Governor Gregoire personally worked with legislators and stakeholders
to hammer out the legislation reflected in the final version of HB 2292.
After the House passed HB 2292, I managed the bill’s passage in the
Senate Committee on Health and Long-Term Care, of which I’m a member.
(Although it’s a House bill this year, it’s a mix of provisions that
have been run in the House and Senate over the past few years.) At our
hearing in that Committee, all of the major stakeholders
testified as to their support of the bill, though of course each one
expressed some reservations. This is a major breakthrough that’s taken
us years to achieve. To be sure, almost all of us have reservations
about the legislation as it stands now; that’s the nature of a
compromise.
For example, we dropped provisions that would have increased patient
safety by mandating the revocation of the licenses of the very
few doctors who have a proven record of ongoing malpractice. This “three
strikes” provision provided ample exceptions to prevent the revocation
of the licenses of health care professionals who deserve to keep
practicing. (This is where I have my own reservations.)
Another provision would have required prior approval of medical
malpractice insurance rates. This section would have required that an
insurer, prior to issuing a medical malpractice insurance policy, file
the policy rate and forms with the Insurance Commissioner who for
review. The rates would not become effective until 30 days after filing.
This is done in many other states, but unfortunately is not the general
rule in Washington. Personally, I’d like to see all lines of
insurance rate-setting handled this way.
Nonetheless, HB 2292 makes a firm inroad into our ongoing tasks. HB
2292 will do the do the following:
- Create greater safeguards for patient safety.
- Make some changes in tort (negligence) law and procedure,
including a few that our doctor friends have sought for years, and
many that consumers groups have sought.
- Allow the Insurance Commissioner greater regulatory authority
over fluctuating medical malpractice premiums.
I’ll address each of the priorities of HB 2292 in turn.
Patient Safety
Most instances of malpractice are honest mistakes made by generally
competent doctors who were trying their best. Health care professionals
are imperfect humans like the rest of us, and are bound to make
occasional mistakes. Sometimes, avoidable malpractice occurs because
poor procedures, equipment or work conditions impair health care
professionals’ ability to perform well. A much smaller portion of cases
of malpractice are perpetrated by a tiny minority of health care
professionals who knowingly neglect or hurt their patients.
Finally, other instances of “bad practice” are performed by those few
health care professionals who, perhaps without realizing it, aren’t able
to perform their duties because they’ve become impaired through mental
or physical health problems, or drug abuse.
HB 2292 comprehensively addresses these general categories of medical
malpractice:
A. By strengthening “whistleblower” protections for health
care professionals who offer good-faith reports of misconduct by other
professionals, organizations or corporations, HB 2292 increases the
ability of the Department of Health to address and prevent malpractice.
Who better to recognize misconduct than co-workers?
B. By requiring that hospitals and clinics report the
occurrence of an “adverse event” to the Department of Health within 48
hours of confirmation that such an event has occurred, the legislation
strengthens the ability of medical facilities and the Department to
adopt safeguards that can reduce medical errors. An “adverse event”
as one that involves clinical care that could have injured the patient,
or resulted in an unanticipated injury less than a major permanent loss
of function or death. Within 45 days of the event, a report must be
submitted to the Department of Health.
C. By increasing the public membership component of the
Medical Quality Assurance Commission, HB 2292 offers more opportunity
for public scrutiny of the licensing, standards of practice, and
continuing competency of physicians and physician’s assistants.
Attempts to improve the system must have increased input from patients,
plain and simple. In the same way that the Bar Association’s
disciplinary panels and those of other healthcare professions involve
lay members, so should the MQAC have an increased lay membership.
D. By allowing disciplinary authorities the right to
consider past acts of negligence, HB 2292 strengthens the ability of
those authorities to help prevent further acts of negligence by those
few “repeat offenders” who have a proven record of ongoing malpractice.
When imposing a sanction, a health profession disciplining authority may
consider prior findings of unprofessional conduct, stipulations to
informal disposition, and the actions of other Washington or
out-of-state disciplining authorities.
As I mentioned, HB 2292 originally contained a “Three Strikes and
You’re Out” provision for health care professionals. This meant that any
combination of three unrelated disciplinary orders or court verdicts for
certain egregious acts of unprofessional conduct within a ten-year
period would have automatically resulted in the permanent revocation of
a health care professional’s license. The “three strikes” provision
provided ample exceptions to prevent the revocation of the
licenses of those health care professionals who do deserve to keep
practicing. The Senate, by adopting the compromise worked out by the
Governor, took this provision out of the final bill that we sent back to
the House for concurrence.
HB 2292 will also increase the ability of a health care provider to
offer an apology for a negligent act, without fear of the apology being
used against him or her in court. The bill states that a statement of
fault, apology or sympathy, or a statement of remedial actions that may
be taken, is not admissible as evidence if the statement was conveyed by
a health care provider within 30 days of the time that the negligent act
was discovered.
Strengthening the Civil Justice System
For several years, the insurance industry and the Medical Association
have sought restrictions on liability lawsuits, especially those
claiming medical negligence, as if they were the only solution to
skyrocketing malpractice premiums. The changes they sought are in the
nature of closing the courthouse door to some victims by, for example,
limiting attorneys’ fees in order to make it more difficult to engage a
lawyer and capping certain damages in an effort to lower victims’
incentive to seek a remedy. We didn’t do that in HB 2292, but there were
some reasonable changes we made. Here are the three aspects of the
legislation that will strengthen our civil justice system.
A. HB 2292 strengthens the court’s ability to screen
claims. The plaintiff who sues for malpractice must first file a
certificate of merit executed by a qualified expert (typically an
independent doctor in the same medical specialty as the doctor being
sued) who states that there is a reasonable probability that the
defendant’s conduct did not meet the required standard of care.
Attorneys who file a claim or defense must certify – subject to
sanctions – that the claim or defense is not frivolous. The court can
forward the name of an attorney filing a frivolous lawsuit or defense to
the Bar Association for possible discipline.
Our civil justice system already has several mechanisms to prevent
frivolous lawsuits. Juries discern which claims are valid. Judges are
authorized to grant summary judgment dismissing a frivolous lawsuit, and
are allowed by existing law to assess court costs (the other party's
expenses) against the party or lawyer bringing the frivolous lawsuit. HB
2292 would add to these by strengthening the court’s ability to screen
cases at the outset.
B. The bill reduces court costs by increasing the use of
arbitration. A new voluntary arbitration system is established for
disputes involving alleged malpractice. If both parties agree to submit
to arbitration, the maximum award is $1,000,000 for economic and
non-economic damages. The arbitrator is selected by agreement of the
parties. Because med-mal cases are so hard to prove, and so expensive to
work up for trial, only the truly egregious injuries result in filed
claims. A $1 million verdict or settlement is considered moderate in
amount.
C. HB 2292 eliminates the tolling of the statute of
limitations during minority. The eight-year statute of repose is
re-established. This cuts down the amount of time a child’s family
has in which to bring a suit for damage to the child. This may seem
unfair to the child if the injury is one that is only discoverable over
time, but it allows the doctor and her insurance company some certainty
about which patients are eligible to sue. (I don’t much like this one
much, but remember that HB 2292 is a compromise.)
Allowing our Insurance Commissioner greater
regulatory authority over fluctuating medical malpractice insurance
premiums
We need to get a handle on the skyrocketing cost of medical
malpractice insurance so that good doctors aren’t driven from
Washington. HB 2292 offers two general strategies. In the long run,
these changes are modest, compared to the original four provisions,
which, collectively, would have decreased the cyclical fluctuations in
malpractice insurance premiums that so bedevil our doctors. One of the
provisions we removed would have strengthened underwriting standards by
requiring that medical malpractice insurers file their underwriting
standards at least 30 days before the standards become effective.
As I mentioned about, we also removed a provision that would have
required prior approval of medical malpractice insurance rates. I
believe this increased oversight of rate changes would have assisted the
Insurance Commissioner with his goal of stabilizing.
The removal of these two provisions, in my opinion, is where we gave
the most in this compromise. Premium increases are a function of the
economy, not of the law, and require economic regulation.
We were able to keep two important provisions:
A. Eliminate “gag orders” on claim settlements. Gag
orders prevent all of us from knowing how much insurers actually pay out
for malpractice claims, and allow insurers to hide important information
about those they insure. While most are generally competent, there are
those very few health care professionals who are truly incompetent or
are in some way impaired. The bill requires insurance companies to
report information that is currently kept secret.
B. Increase the mandatory notice period that insurers must
give to policy holders for cancellation or non-renewal from 45 days to
90 days. This is intended to make it easier for a doctor whose
policy has been cancelled to sign up with another insurance company.
When an insurer takes an adverse action against an insured, such as
cancellation of coverage, they must include the actual reason for
refusing to renew.
This lengthy blog entry may be much more than you wanted to hear, but
hey, it’s an important and complex issue.
March 3, 2006
Teach Your Children Well
On March 1, the Senate unanimously passed HB 1107, which provides for
early intervention services for children from birth to age three who
have a disability. This is a great piece of legislation, and I’m proud
of everyone who brought this bill to fruition.
Advocates have worked long and hard to make sure that public schools
provide instruction and related services that are specially designed to
meet the unique needs and abilities of students with disabilities. Under
current law, "special education" is provided at no cost to eligible
students in the state between three and 21 years of age.
School districts may provide early intervention services to
eligible preschool-age children with a disability. School districts that
provide these services are entitled to the regular apportionments from
state and county school funds, as provided by law, in addition to
allocations from state for special services for children with
disabilities.
HB 1107 mandates that, by fall of 2009, school districts must
either provide or contract for early intervention services in
partnership with local childcare agencies and providers. The services
must not supplant services or funding currently provided in the state
for early intervention services to eligible children with disabilities
from birth to three years of age.
Early intervention is a key part to early learning. Children
with disabilities who receive early services do the best. Early
intervention services prevent secondary complications and disabilities.
The children who receive these services encounter fewer difficulties
when they enter school. Families gain because they learn how to work
with their child, and schools gain because children are prepared when
they come to school. Every child should have the benefit of a gently
stimulating environment – being held, squeezed, talked to, carried
about, shown the world a comprehensible bit at a time. I believe that
some parenting skills are hard-wired into humans, but many of us need to
be shown how or reminded how to be a good parent. As the saying goes
(and as every parent knows), children don’t come into this world with an
instruction manual. Children with disabilities may provide even more
complicated parenting challenges. The state can't mandate good
parenting. (We couldn't afford it anyway.) But we can help out in
the lives of those kids who need it the most. I’m glad that the state is
stepping up to this important responsibility.
March 1, 2006
Replacing the Viaduct: Keeping the Choice Local
It appears that some legislators believe that the state should usurp
Seattle’s authority over our local roadways. Earlier this week, the
House Transportation Committee approved a supplemental transportation
budget with an amendment that would effectively prohibit replacing our
crumbling viaduct with a tunnel unless full funding for the project can
be found by April 1 of this year. The fact that this amendment passed
the House Transportation Committee with a vote of 26 to 2 took many of
us off guard. The amendment was later removed in the House, but there is
still a movement afoot to place it back in the final 2006 Supplemental
Transportation Budget.
The state and city have been working for years to replace the
viaduct, part of state Highway 99, which was damaged in the 2001
Nisqually earthquake. Seattle has opted to replace the viaduct with a
tunnel, which would cost more but open the waterfront to new recreation
and development. The City has asked the state and federal governments
for help. The project has some urgency, since we all expect another
earthquake, and the current structure is already shifting from the last
one. The state legislature has set aside $2 billion, roughly a little
less than the cost of a replacement viaduct. The legislature made it
clear, through the public pronouncements of its leading members on the
House and Senate Transportation Committees, that no further funds would
be forthcoming. More is going to be required for a tunnel, which has a
price tag now of some $3.7 billion. (That's after a saving of $400
million from deferring the repair of that portion of the sea wall that
is north of the Battery St. tunnel, where the route turns inland.) Our
mayor is actively seeking a federal contribution, and the city council
will ask the voters to approve a bond-issue for whatever amount remains
as the local portion.
I believe the tunnel is the better solution for a variety of reasons.
But there is something more at stake here than a decision between
another viaduct and a tunnel, and that is whether local authority over
roadways should be removed by state government. The rule has always been
that local governments lay out their roads, bridges, and other
infrastructure, and ask state (and sometimes federal) assistance where
needed. A major bridge, viaduct, or other feature would most likely
require outside help. The state and federal governments get to say yes
or no to the money, so cities and counties exercise some fiscal
restraint in these decisions. But the initial decision is that of local
government.
I support this strategy very strongly, and for this reason I actively
oppose the amendment. There are several reasons for my
opposition--preservation of the city's connection to the Sound and
Elliott Bay, and the economic advantages of a working waterfront chief
among them--but the one that most strongly motivates me to oppose this
is simply local control. Olympia frequently tells Seattle to do business
according to the instincts of legislators from Rosalia, Pasco, and
Copalis. There is a provision in state law governing the Seattle Zoo.
That the folks behind this amendment are fellows Seattle liberals makes
no difference whatsoever. In the event the anti-tunnel language
reappears in the Transportation Budget, you can bet your gluteus maximus
that I will vote to remove this amendment in the Senate.
Feb. 24, 2006
This week’s main event was the appeal for tax money to
remodel Key Arena. NBA Commissioner David Stern and Seattle Sonics owner
Howard Schultz appeared before the Senate Ways and Means Committee and
asked, straight-faced, for $200 million and threatened to leave Seattle
if they didn’t get it.
That’s $200 million of your tax dollars, folks.
Count me as a solid “no” on this one, for three reasons.
First, that’s $200 million that can’t be spent on
under-funded programs or saved in case of another economic downturn.
Second, since I said “no” to NASCAR I feel obligated to
say the same to the Sonics.
Third, I resent the heavy-handed attempts at extortion.
Ticket prices are already beyond the reach of many fans, yet we’re told
the organization is losing money even though Key Arena underwent an
extensive remodel ten years ago. There’s something wrong with this
business model.
The problem here is that the sports tycoons have wrapped
their proposal around another recipient of public assistance in order to
garner public support. I whole-heartedly support public funding for the
arts and resent the way the arts community is being as a shield to
deflect criticism of the arena boondoggle.
Show me a reasonable funding for public arts and I’ll
enthusiastically support it. But $200 million to keep a fancy playground
for millionaire athletes? No thank you.
Friday, Feb. 10, 4:30 p.m.
Help! It’s 60 degrees outside, the sun is shining beautifully in the
big blue sky, and I’m trapped in a suit and tie in a windowless room
with lots of other similarly-dressed, sun-starved senators. I’d hoped to
go for a hike on Saturday, but it turns out that the Senate will be
convening tomorrow as well.
But enough whining. Really, I love this job, even when it keeps me
inside on a pretty day. We’re working furiously right now on the Senate
floor because we’re facing a deadline: by 5:00pm on Tuesday, February
14th, all bills must be passed out of their house of origin. That means
that all Senate bills must be passed and sent over to the House for
their consideration, and vice versa. Those that don’t passed are
effectively “dead.” There are a few exceptions, particularly for bills
that are necessary to implement the budget.
My desire to enjoy the great outdoors brings to mind some of the
excellent environmental legislation we’re working on. Yesterday, the
Senate passed SB 6428, legislation that will reduce toxics in the
environment by providing convenient and safe recycling of computers and
televisions at no cost to residents, schools and small businesses
throughout the state. There are serious health and
environmental concerns with throwing our old computers and televisions
into our landfills, or in shipping them off to other locales for
environmentally unsound disposal.
I’m a co-sponsor of
SB 6428. It was developed by a broad coalition, and is
implemented by businesses rather than government. Because electronics
manufacturers will pay for the program, it will create financial
incentives for them to design for recycling and use less toxic
substances such as lead and mercury. I wholeheartedly support measures
like this that encourage manufacturers to stop using toxic substances,
so we don’t have to deal with the environmental consequences later.
The legislation creates green business opportunities for Washington
recyclers, and is supported by Hewlett Packard, Washington Retailers,
Amazon.com, and other companies. It’s likely that it will pass the
House, and should make it more convenient for businesses, charities,
schools, and individuals to take part in an electronic waste recycling
system. It will go a long way to help keep our environment free from
toxic waste.
Another good bill,
SB 6508, is known as The Alternative Fuels Act. This bill passed
out of committee, and is waiting in the Rules Committee to be put on the
floor calendar. If it passes, it would set a “renewable fuel standard”
requiring that a certain percentage of motor fuel be obtained from the
bio-fuels ethanol or biodeisel. Five other states have similar
standards. The bill calls for all diesel fuel sold in Washington contain
at least 2% biodiesel fuel. All gasoline must contain at least 2.5%
ethanol. Those percentages seem low, but can be increased as Washington
farmers produce more ethanol, and as engine technology improves.
Substituting biofuels for petroleum products will improve air quality,
reduce dependency on oil, help diversify and create new crops for
farmers, and improve the local economy. Biodiesel in particular has been
proven a success by the many businesses, agencies, and individuals who
currently use it on a regular basis. This legislation will help create
additional demand for biodiesel and ethanol in Washington.
In addition, a renewable fuel standard will complement other
Washington-proposed policies for infrastructure investments. Many farms
have a difficult time being profitable even when they are very
productive. Growers need a date certain so growers can have the
confidence to get started. Farmers need alternative crops to be
profitable. An oil seed industry will give farmers an opportunity to
diversify and lower their marketing risks.
The Commute Trip Reduction bill,
SB 6566, will also assist us in lessening our dependence on
fuel. The bill will revise the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) provisions
of state law. The CTR law was enacted as part of the Washington Clean
Air Act in 1991, with the goal of reducing air pollution, traffic
congestion, and fuel consumption through employer-based programs that
decrease the number of employees traveling by single-occupant vehicles
to the workplace.
The CTR program uses employer-based incentives such as vanpooling and
free bus passes to remove more than 19,000 vehicles from our state’s
roadways each morning. This legislation will re-authorize this effective
program, and encourage urban-based employers to increase their
involvement in the program.
I see both of these fuel-related bills as small parts of a larger
strategy to reduce the impact of automobiles. Not only are they our
largest source of air pollution, automobiles are major contributors to
urban sprawl, water pollution, oil spill, and global warming. Global
warming could very well lead to environmental catastrophe. Our current
catastrophic involvement in the Middle East is due in great part our
inability to quench our thirst for oil. We need to drastically cut down
on the burning of fossil fuels, and the sooner the better.
I’m also a big fan of Governor Gregoire’s “Clean Up Puget Sound”
budget proposals. Accelerating toxic cleanups in Puget Sound, stormwater
contamination prevention, estuary habitat restoration projects, oil
spill prevention and response, septic system repair, and creosote log
removal are some of the actions that the Governor proposed to the
legislature in her budget. I’m advocating for full-funding of these
proposals.
Enjoy the pre-Springtime weather!
Feb. 10, 2006
For the last four years, we've begun the legislative session
facing budget deficits of at least a billion dollars. This year,
with the rising economy, we started the budget-writing process with
a surplus of $1.4 billion. This has led some to think that
since we have "extra" money, we ought to cut taxes. I'm all for
cutting unnecessary taxes, and for re-working our tax system so it's
fair, progressive, stable and adequate. But if we were to cut taxes
now, it would set us up for a round of either spending cuts or tax
increases in two or four years down the road.
I very firmly believe that we need to think of sustainability
while writing the budget. The word "surplus" is a bit of a misnomer,
especially when you take into consideration the harsh spending cuts
we've made in the last decade as well as the cuts the federal
government has made to necessary state programs. (The result of
these federal cuts to programs like Medicaid means that the state
has had to pony up a whole lot more money in order to provide the
same level of basic services.)
We'll probably allocate about $300 million for important new
projects, such as advancing the clean-up of Puget Sound and a
new Department of Early Learning. And we're required to
backfill funds for some programs that we didn't fund in last year's
budget, such as teachers salaries and some health care services for
kids.
Although there are many line-items I don't agree with on Gov.
Gregoire's budget proposal, I do agree with her overall plan to put
about two-thirds of the surplus into reserve accounts. Of this, we
should earmark at least $130 million for a pension stabilization
account to make up for the mistake we made in underfunding state
pension accounts in the past five years. The rest should go into
emergency reserves and stability accounts to use in hard times.
But I also advocate that we use some of the "surplus" to restore
some of the social and health services we've so drastically cut. The
Community Health Services (CHS) program is a prime example of a good
investment, because we'll end up saving money in the long run if we
invest now in health care. Many folks from the 37th District have
written to me in support of the CHS program, and I wholeheartedly
agree that we should fund it well this year.
For 20 years, the Community Health Services program has been one
of our state’s best strategies for ensuring access to health care
for uninsured people. Administered by the state Health Care
Authority, CHS allocates public funds to community health centers
and other providers of medical and dental care to the uninsured.
Grant money is available to non-profit community health clinics that
provide care on a sliding scale, regardless of an individual’s
ability to pay, and that have policies and procedures reflecting
sensitivity to the cultural and linguistic needs of patients.
Washington’s health centers consistently provide care for about one
third of Washington’s uninsured population. They insure that the
uninsured have access to timely preventive care, resulting in better
health and fewer emergency room visits.
In 2005, the we cut funds to CHS by 22%. This cut has hurt
community health centers, coming at a time when the number of
uninsured people seeking care is at an all-time high, and federal
grant dollars are not keeping pace. (The Bush administration cares
deeply about the medically indigent, and is so very
distressed that nothing’s left after tax cuts for the top 5% of
incomes.) As a result of these state and federal cuts, over 150,000
more people were uninsured in Washington in 2004 than in 2000, a 34%
increase in four years.
Governor Gregoire chose to not include an increase for CHS in her
Supplemental Budget proposal. To remedy this problem,
representatives of the community clinics were in Olympia last week
to meet with us and to ask us to include a substantial increase in
the Supplemental Budget. I believe the Legislature will end up
slightly increasing funding to CHS, but it will be nowhere near
enough to restore funding to the pre-2005 levels, let alone
increasing funding to accommodate the greater number of uninsured
Washingtonians.
To adequately fund our healthcare and social service
programs, our tax system will need to be overhauled. Even with our
small budget surplus this year, we struggle to provide the services
our citizens expect and the education that our children deserve. A
large part of the State's problem has been brought about by reckless
tax cut initiatives and our long-term habit of subsidizing large
corporations via tax-breaks and other types of subsidies. Playing
reverse Robin Hood, taking from ordinary taxpayers and giving to
large corporations, just doesn’t make sense to me.
But one must ask: why would the average low or middle-income
voter oppose their own economic interests? Why would they elect
legislators who cut off funds that pay for the services they
themselves need: roads, education, public safety, on and on? I
believe it's because the majority of middle and low income voters
are the victims, often un-knowing victims, of the incredibly
regressive tax system in this state. The three major taxes that
remain are all regressive: they fall more heavily on middle and low
income taxpayers than on the wealthy. For example, the regressive
sales taxes has the heaviest impact on those least able to pay.
Property taxes are not directly correlated to income. The B&O
(Business and Occupations) tax, as it is currently configured, can
cut struggling and new small businesses off at the knees. It’s no
wonder that low-income people feel over-taxed. Relative to the
wealthy, they are.
And then there's this connection that many folks -- including
some legislators -- forget about when they think about taxes: the
connection between the amount that comes in to the state
treasury in state tax revenues, and the amount that goes out
in state services. Taxes are just half of the equation. We expect a
wide range of public services: protection by fire-fighters, police
officers, and the Department of Corrections; social and health
services; roadways and public transportation; and on and on. If we
want a lower level of services, then certainly we can provide that
with a lower level of taxes. The trouble is, I haven't met a person
yet who wants a lower level of services from state government.
We can't continue to balance the budget simply by hacking away at
state services. Major tax reform, including the introduction of a
progressive state income tax, is absolutely essential to solving our
fiscal problems. I support legislation overhauling our tax structure
to create a more cohesive system of taxes which are fair,
progressive, stable, and adequate. Only then will we be able to
appropriately fund vital programs like Community Health Clinics.
Feb. 3, 2006
I’ve received lots of inquiries this week about a bill I
sponsored this session at the request of our Attorney General, Rob
McKenna. As the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I'm
often called upon to act as the prime sponsor of bills that are
departmental or Attorney-General requests, or that come from the
judicial branch. It's a courtesy extended by committee chairs of
both parties, and a courtesy that holds over thankfully from the
less partisan period in our history. By extending this courtesy, a
chair signals not necessarily that he or she supports it, but that
it will get a hearing and due consideration.
Thus, I sponsored
SB 6215 even though I’m wholeheartedly against the A-G’s
proposal. In fact, I killed it by not even bringing it to a vote in
the committee. It’s now dead for the remainder of the session. The
proposal would dramatically increase the statuary protection against
liability held by state and local government. Proponents of this
legislation believe there should be strong immunity from liability
for governmental functions because rising claim and legal defense
costs for liability lawsuits are threatening to bankrupt state and
local government. (“Governmental functions” are those that are for
the benefit of the public, and include regulatory programs, police
and fire protection, correctional programs, and social welfare
programs.)
Last November, Washington voters rejected the attempt by
insurance companies to limit the monetary recovery of injured
patients in medical-malpractice lawsuits. By flatly rejecting I-330,
voters recognized the important role of the courts as a corrective
to harmful practices, whether of the medical profession, corporate
profiteering, or governmental incompetence. It's bad public policy
to close the courthouse door to those injured by incompetent
practices by any entity or industry, and thereby to let that entity
or industry off the hook for its misdeeds. Not only would the
Attorney-General's bill let state and local government off the hook
for many of its functions, but it would set the stage for similar
privilege-seeking by our corporate sector, always anxious for
so-called "tort reform."
The people of Washington pay billions of dollars per year for
public services. We expect and deserve quality, accountability, and
responsibility from our governmental agencies. Governmental
liability buttresses our demands and expectations, and I'll continue
to fight for our right to use the power of the courts to support
them.
By the way, Happy New Year! January 29 was the first day of the
Chinese new year. We've now entered The Year of the Dog. This seems
auspicious, as I believe we could all learn a lot from dogs. My two
dogs, Foxtrot and Golda, are quite happy about having a year that
honors them. Of course, they're well aware that at our house, every
year is their year.
Take good care,
Adam
Jan. 31, 2006 - A Victory for Equality
On Friday, January 27 we FINALLY passed the law banning
discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've never felt better
about a vote than this one. It took almost 30 years, since this
legal protection was first proposed in 1977, so this was a big win.
We had to wait for public opinion to force enough of our colleagues
to recognize the simple fact that Washingtonians do not support
bigotry. There is no second-class love.
HB 2661 adds sexual orientation to a list of characteristics
– such as race, gender, age, creed and marital status – protected
from discrimination in employment, housing and credit. The law will
take effect on June 7. The law will give folks limited legal
standing if they experience certain types of discrimination based on
their sexual orientation. The new law isn’t a cure-all for the many
guises of homophobia experienced by gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender folks. Proving the existence of illegal discrimination
to our woefully underfunded state
Human Rights Commission is a lengthy and difficult process. As
we know from groups of people who’ve fought for legal protection
against discrimination – people of color, for example – simply
outlawing discrimination doesn’t make it go away. Nonetheless, as
the sign on the Paramount Theater in Seattle read on Friday night,
passage of this law is truly a “Victory for Equality!”
Those of us who support equality will have our work cut out for
us this summer and fall if we’re to keep this law intact. The
Republicans say they'll bring this to a referendum. This is an
election year, and Republicans know very well how to get their
favorite social issues (Guns, Gays, and God) on the ballot, in order
to distract people from their own economic interests and persuade
them to vote Republican.
I hear that Tim Eyman has made this pro-bigotry cause his own, as
might be expected when a business opportunity like this arises.
Apparently the $105,000 he was already expecting to make this year
as an Initiative Salesman wasn’t enough. Legislators make about
$35,000 a year, so you’ve got to credit Tim for finding a
well-paying niche for his skills as a salesman.
Speaking of Tim Eyman, he sent his cell phone number to many of
us on his listserve: 509-991-5295. He bills himself as a man of the
people, so I’m sure he’d love to hear from you.
Keep in touch.
Yours truly,
Adam
Jan. 19, 2005
Happy belated Martin Luther King, Jr Day! State law precludes
legislators and staff from taking holidays off during the
legislative session, so I had the pleasure of meeting with many
constituents who’d traveled down here on their day off to advocate
for a wide range of legislation. I met with folks from Washington
Citizen Action, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the Welfare
Rights Organizing Coalition, and the Service Employees International
Union. Most of these folks are unpaid advocates, and I’m continually
impressed with their dedication. We agreed on a lot, including the
necessity of making sure that progressives don’t keep preaching to
our choirs: we need to keep organizing folks in more conservative
districts to advocate for progressive change.
On Tuesday, I met with a lobbyist for Wal-Mart who somehow
thought she could dissuade me from voting for
Fair Share Health Care Act, of which I'm a co-sponsor. This
legislation would require employers of 5,000 or more employees
(full- or part-time) to spend 7% to 9% of their payroll toward
health care for their employees, or else pay the difference to the
State fund. The employers can either provide health care benefits
themselves, or pay us to do it for them. They can’t have the
taxpayers pick up their tab any longer.
The Wal-Mart lobbyist and I agreed that the legislation shouldn’t
just target Wal-Mart and a few other businesses with over 5,000
employees. Of course, we disagreed about why the bill shouldn’t have
such limited scope. Wal-Mart doesn’t want to provide good health
care plans or pay a living wage to its employees, and it resents
being targeted by the Legislature. As for me, I’d prefer that the
bill retain the scope of similar legislation last year, which would
have required employers of 50 or more to provide basic, affordable
health insurance to their employees or pay into a State fund that
would expand publicly provided health care services to cover these
employees. But I’ll vote Yes on this bill, because we’ve got to
start somewhere.
On Tuesday night I attended a public forum regarding medical
malpractice. The editorial board at The Olympian sponsored the
forum, which was attended by Democratic and Republican legislators,
the state Insurance Commissioner, and a cross-section of
stakeholders. Many of you are familiar with my long-term interest in
resolving the issues the inherent in the current tempest over
medical malpractice: patient safety issues; wildly fluctuating costs
of malpractice insurance; the ability of victims of malpractice to
recover damages for their injuries; and the high cost of health
care. An MP3 of the statement I made regarding these issues will be
posted here tomorrow. Feel free to contact me about these or any
other topics!
Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Adam
Jan. 16, 2005
Hi Folks,
Today’s the 30th consecutive day of rain down here in Olympia. It’s
great weather to sit in warm rooms strategizing with colleagues,
constituents from the 37th district, and stakeholder groups about the
issues we’re tackling on this session. My newsletter, which you'll soon
find in my SDC web site, provides an overview of what I'm working on
this session. I’ll also post notes on this
blog several times a week. Please respond!
I’ve also kept warm recently by having heated discussions with Tim
Eyman. For six years, Mr. Eyman has promoted taxing-cutting initiatives.
He doesn’t like to acknowledge that his tax-cutting initiatives have
led to harmful cuts in necessary state programs. I’ve asked him
repeatedly to tell all of us exactly what public services he
suggests we cut to accommodate those tax cuts. He won't dare to
answer me.
I’m the first to applaud the much-needed
changes to increase the efficiency of government in the last decade. But
the biggest cuts we’ve made have been in the provision of important
public services we all depend upon. Often, we simply increase future
expenses (in prisons, for example) by cutting present ones (schools,
mental health care).
It's ironic that Tim, after all his years of clamoring for
accountability in state government, refuses to tell us what programs he
envisions eliminating as the result of his tax-cutting initiatives.
Here's an article I published in
the Seattle PI a few weeks ago. The printed version had been edited for
space requirements. This is the full, unedited version:
Uh-oh. Hold onto your wallets, folks. Tim Eyman is back again.
That’s right, the initiative salesman, who secretly pocketed
thousands in campaign contributions, began his most recent screed
("2006 initiative: Save our $30 tabs," 12/29) by asserting that
nobody trusts politicians. Then the veteran of umpteen initiative
campaigns proceeds to attack politicians for ignoring the will of
the voters by allowing additional fees for vehicle registration. No
mention, of course, that the additional fees are still there because
of the drafting of his own initiative, which he advertised as the
"$30 Tab Initiative." He failed to eliminate these fees. Talk about
truth in advertising! He could have eliminated them in his own
initiative, I-695, part of which (the part about car-tabs) was
adopted word-for-word by the Legislature. The Legislature just took
his own text about car-tabs and passed it, and now he complains! He
could have fixed it again with I-776, which he dubbed "$30 Car Tabs
for Everyone." But he didn’t. He blew it, not once but twice, and
now he blames it on those "politicians."
To quote Eyman: ‘The arrogance is overwhelming."
I think people are smarter than that, smarter than to be conned
again. Eyman’s bet, like John Carlson’s in I-912, is that folks are
dumb and selfish, and will vote their own short-term interest only,
and not care about the consequences for their neighbors in the city,
the county, and the state they live in, or even their own
longer-term interest. By defeating I-912, which would have rolled
back gasoline tax increases necessary to maintain our transportation
infrastructure, people cast a vote for our collective long-term
interest. Taxes, in whatever form, are the price we pay as sensible
society for the government services that we all depend on.
Responsible citizens know that our roads and bridges need repair.
Responsible citizens know that our schools need funding. Responsible
citizens know that these essential services don’t come free, but
must be paid for by taxes.
When we cut the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) with that bill
ripped from I-695, we lowered taxes by $1.7 billion in a two-year
$21 billion budget. Then I-722 and I-747 cut the property tax to a
growth rate of 1% yearly—less than half the inflation rate of 2.1%,
meaning that property tax revenues are worth 1.1% less every year to
state and local governments. As a direct result, we legislators had
to make some tough choices. We have now, sadly, eliminated some
programs that did good things for good people, and starved others.
For example, we had to cut college scholarships again. We used to
encourage kids to go to college even if their parents weren't rich
and couldn't afford it, by giving them scholarships if they kept
their grades up to a B-minus. We cut those, so now the scholarships
aren't enough to help the middle-class kids, and it's more kids from
higher-income families that are now going to college.
We had to cut nursing home rates again. We didn't like that cut
the first time, because our parents' generation are in nursing homes
that get paid less than the real cost of their care. Keep in mind
that Medicaid assistance is used by folks from all economic
backgrounds. The nursing homes have to do fund-raising, just like
PTA groups, to make up the difference. (And those PTA groups are
raising funds in bake sales to make up what we don't cover in their
kids education.)
We had to cut even more funds from the Dept. of Corrections,
which supervises ex-felons after release from prison. Problem is,
some of those guys are dangerous and commit more crimes when they
are not tightly supervised, which has been happening more since we
had to cut supervision the first time.
But you won’t hear about any of this from Tim. His wild ranting
on the subject of "outrageously expensive tabs" is matched only by
his strange silence on the subject of which government services
should be cut or eliminated as a result of his initiatives. How do I
know? Because I’ve personally asked him, repeatedly, to answer the
question: "Where’s the fat, Tim?" Twice I had copies of the budget
with me, and asked him to just point to the over-funded parts. He
won’t. Ever. He knows that voters can be manipulated by the promise
of "low taxes" only so long as they’re unaware that it will have any
effect on the services they rely on from state and local government.
For some folks—certainly the ones who shout the loudest—there is a
disconnect between the taxes they pay to state and local government
and the services they are provided.
Maybe government’s services are invisible. We are so accustomed
to being protected from crime, fire, and flood, so used to our kids
going to school, our elders cared for in nursing homes, and so
unaware of the benefits of universities, health departments, courts,
utility regulators, building inspectors, snow removal, oil-spill
recovery teams, and all the other subsidized services, that we
simply assume them to be part of the natural landscape. We forget
that they were created in response to public demand by our
neighbors, whom we elected to our legislature and our county and
city councils. They can be (and are frequently) changed in response
to public demand. And because of public demand, we pay for them with
our taxes. It’s so easy to forget all the ways we each benefit, and
to think that all state services are "welfare," and benefit only
some nameless undeserving people elsewhere. And that’s what Tim and
the other pied pipers want you to do.
But there’s another dimension to Tim Eyman’s manipulation: he
professes to be standing up for the little guy, while we legislators
favor the fat cats. Look closely. It’s the other way around. Tim’s
targets have been the MVET and property tax, the taxes that took in
more from the rich than from middle class working folks; the one tax
he likes is the sales tax, our most punitive to middle- and
low-income folks. The MVET—those supposedly evil car tabs—took in
more from expensive limousines and SUVs (Tim—do you still have that
Lexus?) than from my constituents’ beaters. Someone explain to me
why a guy with a 15-year-old Ford should pay the same as a guy with
a 2006 Jaguar. Likewise, all real estate in Washington is by law
assessed at 100% of fair market value, and rates within a city or
county are uniform, so the luxurious mansion pays more property tax
than the modest home. (Don’t expect Tim to talk about that. He’d
rather you didn’t, either.)
Now that we’ve dropped the MVET and property tax, Forbes Magazine
calls Washington "a tax haven for the wealthy." The non-partisan
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy rates our state’s tax
structure, after the initiatives, as the single most regressive in
the country—not surprising, given that "middle-income Washingtonians
paid 11.3% of their income in [state and local] tax, while the very
wealthiest one percent of Washington taxpayers paid just 3.3% of
their income." Of all the 50 states, we’re the most reliant on the
sales tax, the single most painful to middle-class working families,
but the one that goes unnoticed because it’s paid literally in
nickels and dimes. (More at www.itepnet.org.)
So, Tim, if you’re going to sell us another of your initiatives,
if you’re going to pose once again as a budget expert, if you’re
going to pretend yet again to speak for the little guy, if you’re
once again going to rail against "fraud, waste, and abuse" by us
evil "politicians," then answer the doggone question. Where is it,
Tim? Where’s the waste in the budget?
Folks, we’ll have to be persistent if we want an answer. Tim
can’t afford to talk about who really pays these taxes, or what
benefits we pay for. If we want a state that works, we can no longer
afford to let him slip-slide away.
Adam Kline
Adam Kline is the state senator from the 37th
District, in southeast Seattle’s Rainier Valley, Columbia City, and
Central District neighborhoods, and Renton
Return to
Senator Kline's home page. |
