• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

By Darin Schanker

Picture an economy in which an individual’s interests are given equal footing with the proverbial bottom line, one in which citizens are valued more than corporate monopolies. These ideas might seem novel, given today’s economic climate. Yet, this is exactly what Senate Bill 248, currently circulating through the legislature, aims to accomplish.

The facts of the bill are straightforward. If SB 248 is implemented, any insurance company with a 65 percent or greater market share that seeks to raise insurance premiums by 5 percent or more would be subject to a public hearing at the discretion of the insurance commissioner. The bill requires no more, no less.

Prior approval for insurance companies is not a new concept. One-third of the states have laws similar to SB 248. The reason for this trend is obvious: Without it, there is no check on excessive premiums. Who would object to such accountability?

The Colorado Physicians Insurance Co. does.

COPIC insures 80 percent of the state’s private physicians. During the last three years, COPIC has collected $294 million in malpractice premiums paid by Colorado doctors, and paid out $104 million for malpractice claims. Over that same period, COPIC has accumulated a surplus of $144 million. All the while, COPIC has raised Colorado doctors’ malpractice rates on a regular basis.

SB 248 is designed to address such abuses. COPIC has strongly opposed this legislation, making several inaccurate assertions which must be addressed:

1. SB 248 is not anti-competitive; it creates a climate where consumers are aware and informed about their insurance. With COPIC holding a near monopoly, doctors deserve to know why their premiums increase at a rate inconsistent with the industry as a whole.

2. SB 248 won’t prevent insurance companies from being profitable or aggressively defending their insured against claims. Any contrary assertion disregards common sense.

3. SB 248 will not increase insurance rates for consumers or drive doctors out of the state. Instead, malpractice premiums will plateau and ultimately decrease as compared to states without similar legislation.

Colorado will be a friendlier place to practice medicine, with carriers only permitted to increase rates with good cause and doctors able to make educated decisions about carriers.

Why do Colorado trial lawyers support this bill? Because every year, COPIC testifies at the Capitol in favor of legislation limiting an injured person’s right to be compensated for harm caused by another’s carelessness.

When COPIC’s claims are viewed through the prism of hundreds of millions of hoarded premium dollars collected at the expense of doctor malpractice rates and injured patients’ inability to be compensated, such claims reveal themselves as disingenuous.

Right now, consumers have no vehicle through which to evaluate these representations or be assured a proposed rate increase is appropriate.

The aim of SB 248 is to create a transparent process and empower the insurance commissioner to monitor excessive rate increases. The outcome will have no impact whatsoever on the number of lawsuits filed, settled or brought to trial; it will merely create an honest process where citizens are charged appropriately for the coverage they purchase.

Perhaps honesty is what has COPIC running scared. If subject to a public hearing, can COPIC defend its history of excessive rate increases and its exorbitant surplus fund?

While COPIC was formed to protect Colorado’s physicians, it is currently leaving that promise unfulfilled by lining its pockets at the doctors’expense. If a company like COPIC, with its dominant market share, wants to raise malpractice rates, is it too much to ask that the rate increase not be excessive?

Darin Schanker is a partner with Bachus & Schanker LLC and president-elect of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association.

READER COMMENTS

Who makes the money from a malpractice lawsuit? Trial Lawyers do they take home more then an injured patient. Who does this law protect? No one! Did the Doctors of Colorado initiate this law? Did consumers? No, it is the trial lawyers that claim they want to protect you the patients. Patients benefit from COPIC by reducing the frivolous lawsuit and helping the Doctors to practice safer medicine. COPIC tries to get the best outcome for the patient and the doctor. Legislation is what causes the insurance rates to increase more then COPIC's profit margin. The trial lawyer wants their percentage of your award more then they are concerned about accountability, good medicine or premiums. Who is making the trial lawyer accountable for the money they make on a lawsuit. They are very expensive and most of the time the patient never gets most of a award. Bad medicine needs to be identified and patients need to be taken care of but at the expense of one company makes this law unfair and biased. No good can come from a law that does not have good medical practice in mind over the cost of insurance premiums.
If the there is an insurance company that should be held accountable it should be the Auto Insurance industry because we are required to pay auto insurance by law yet auto insurers can raise your premium anytime for any reason. You can be a good driver for years and all it takes is one accident that may or may not be your fault and your premium will increase. Your premium can increase even if you do not get in an accident. A moving violation will increase your premium and all it takes is one ticket in a 3 year period. How fair is that?

People should know where this commentary is coming from. Mr. Schanker is a lawyer who represents plaintiffs in suits brought against COPIC insured doctors in medical malpractice cases. What about the millions of dollars that COPIC has to spend defending cases that do not have merit? Don't you think that is a major part of the rising costs of insurance premiums? Accountability is one thing but lets lay all of the cards on the table before coming to any conclusions

I don't know a lot about this subject, but in the third paragraph was a phrase that told me all I need to about this authors bias.

"One-third of the states have laws similar to SB 248. The reason for this trend is obvious..."
Specifically, "The reason for this trend..." If all these states had passed laws "similar" to the proposed law in the last five years or so, that MIGHT be a trend. But there is no indication if this 'trend' is one that has been stagnant for the last 15 or 20, or more, years, and "similar" does NOT mean that it is enough like the proposed law to give credit.

And, I believe, that the Colorado State Insurance Commissioner is an appointed not elected position. So just what we, the consumer, need. Yet another layer of a system without any accountability to us.

On that alone, I would be against this law.

And I am ALWAYS against the constant and considerable growth of the Government. No matter how much it claims a necessary action to 'protect' us from those bad guy corporations. Who is there to protect us from the bad guys IN the government?

Overcharging doctors for their insurance on on hand and telling the people of Colorado that there is a medical malpractice insurance crisis on the other hand is disingenuous. It's about time that COPIC be made to spread the truth about their business practices.

How the hell am I supposed to be able to afford my new condo in Aspen unless I can charge patients exoribitant amounts and bill the insurance companies?

Give me a break.

POST A COMMENT

• Why so much turnover in mayor's office?
• Hearing on the Ruby Hill towers
• Let freedom ring
• Promoting socialized medicine
• Immigration Laws or Lack Thereof
• Atheist Diversionary Tactics
• The "Melting Pot" is unique to America
• Many mighty hearts covering the world