HARRISBURG - Gov. Ed Rendell's task force report on the medical malpractice insurance crisis in Pennsylvania was as predictable as rising insurance rates.
The task force sidestepped the issue of imposing caps on jury awards for pain and suffering, even though a task force subcommittee had earlier recommended caps as part of a long-range solution in an interim report.
A task force is formed to add legitimacy to the proposals of the official who created the panel.
Rendell, throughout last year's gubernatorial campaign and on numerous occasions since, has made it clear that he thinks caps are not the way to go. He has tried to have it both ways -- also saying he would "consider" caps on lawsuit awards as a last resort.
SOLIDLY OPPOSED
But make no mistake where Rendell is coming from. Rendell traveled to Scranton in January, before his inauguration, to oppose President Bush's proposal to cap pain and suffering awards. Bush had come to Pennsylvania to highlight the need for long-term reforms to resolve the medical malpractice crisis. Rendell wasn't invited, but went there anyway to tell anyone who would listen that caps are not "a silver bullet."
To a certain extent, Rendell is right that caps alone are not a panacea. But taken in conjunction with other reforms, how could caps on lawsuit awards not help reduce costs⢠In the very least, state-imposed caps would send a message that Pennsylvania is no longer an unfriendly place for malpractice insurers.
State lawmakers are pushing for caps to limit noneconomic damages. Bush is trying to win congressional approval for caps that would apply nationwide.
So it comes as little surprise that Rendell's task force would reflect his views.
STACKED DECK
The task force report said that members could not reach a consensus on caps.
Maybe that's so, but it's hard to reach a consensus when you are not allowed to vote on specific issues.
In a March 18 letter to task force members, Rendell said, "In no event should a vote be taken on any issue, as that would be counterproductive to reaching our goals."
How do you know whether there's a consensus if a vote isn't allowed?
The Rendell administration indicated there was no connection between the subcommittee's recommendation for caps and the March 18 letter saying no votes should be taken.
Rendell's press office went so far as to suggest on Tuesday -- the day the report was to be released -- that Rendell didn't know what was in it. The governor had not read the report at the point, a spokeswoman said.
Give me a break.
Look, Rendell doesn't like caps. So it's hardly surprising that his task force would be allowed to recommend them. I have no problem with that. It's what governors routinely do with task forces -- make sure they represent the bosses' view.
It's just silly to pretend otherwise.
The task force was not intended to be an independent panel that would recommend the best options, regardless of the political fallout.
It was intended to appear to be an independent panel adding legitimacy to Rendell's views.
The important thing is to understand that and consider its findings in the proper perspective.
