Letter to the Editor: Payment of Claims did not Lead to Dramatic Increases

To the editor:

I would respectfully take great issue with the letter from Mr. Thomas P. Conley and Mr. Norman P. Jeddeloh, partners at Arnstein & Lehr LLP, ("Letter to the Editor: Importance of case that challenges reform law," Dec. 8).
They resurrect and parrot the now clearly debunked myth that the "healthcare access crisis, [is] due to excessive medical litigation and rapid growth in verdicts."
Their claim that they "personally observed the exodus of physicians," particularly in southern Illinois, smacks of familiar unsupported anecdotes that helped feed the frenzy leading to cap legislation in 2005. The fact is that states with caps do not have more doctors. In fact, the number of doctors in Illinois has increased statewide every year since 1963, in total, per capita and for specialists like neurosurgeons and ob/gyns. Illinois's growth in physician supply has even outpaced its neighbors that have damage caps.
The fact is that payment of claims did not lead to dramatic increases in malpractice premiums because there was no increase in claims. Over the last decade, Illinois malpractice claims and payments have been relatively stable if not declining in frequency and severity, even in Cook, Madison and St. Clair counties, in contrast to their undeserved slandering as "judicial hellholes." The net result of the premium increases was record insurance company profits and gold-plated compensation packages for insurance executives. And the Congressional Budget Office estimates of health care costs related to medical liability reform makes for a nice sound bite but rests on extremely shaky ground — the studies cited by the CBO actually reach the opposite conclusion.
The only positive in the 2005 legislation was the insurance industry regulation that had been strongly resisted by ISMIE, the predominant physician insurer in the state of Illinois and the number one cheerleader for tort reform and caps. For the first time, ISMIE was required to publicly disclose its underwriting and actuarial data. As authoritatively pronounced by Michael McRaith, the Director of the Illinois Department of Insurance, "more [malpractice insurance] companies are looking at Illinois as a viable marketplace because of the availability of this data."
It is not just a "suggestion" of opponents that caps violate our constitution. The Illinois Supreme Court has held as such most recently in 1997. If the Court follows precedent and invalidates the entire legislation because of the unconstitutional cap, the effective insurance reforms — which have not been challenged as being unconstitutional — could and should be immediately re-enacted.
We are subjected yet again to self-serving myths and disregard of constitutional precedent that we heard from other shills for the insurance industry in 2005, 1995, 1985 and 1975. The Court has previously heard these arguments in the appropriate forum — there is nothing new or true about these assertions, and no one should take them seriously any more.

Keith A. Hebeisen
Partner, Clifford Law Offices P.C.
President, Illinois Trial Lawyers Association — 2005-2006