House Bill 215, sponsored by State Representative Jean Schmidt ( R - Loveland), would have required medical claims against health care providers to be reviewed by a medical review panel prior to the claim proceeding in court. This legislation was substituted on April 20, 2004 and no longer applies to medical screening panels. The bill was again substituted on May 4, 2004 and was reported out of the House Insurance Committee.
The version of the bill reported out of the House Insurance Committee weakened the "I am sorry law", removed language from the "expert witness section", revised the medical claims data to be collected, included an affidavit of noninvolvement, removed the request that the Ohio Supreme Court create a medical court, and included a certificate of expert review. The bill passed the Ohio House of Representatives on May 5, 2004 by a vote of 92 - 2. The bill was then referred to the Ohio Senate Insurance, Commerce and Labor Committee for hearings. The bill was amended on May 25, 2004 and was reported out of the Committee. Many of the amendment were for clarification and the data collection language was revised to remove specific data to be collected; however, the language removed will be able to be included in a rule of the Superintendent of the Ohio Department of Insurance.
The Senate Insurance, Commerce and Labor Committee recommended the measure (HB 215) on Tuesday after Republicans approved on a party-line vote an amendment to give the Department of Insurance broad administrative rule making power to collect medical claims data from insurance companies. The bill initially specified 30 items that insurers must report, including amounts of settlements and safety steps taken to reduce the likelihood of future injuries.
Scott Gilliam of the Cincinnati Insurance Companies told the committee nothing in the amendment would prohibit the department from seeking specific information. Instead, it allows the agency to tailor the data requirements to its needs through the administrative rule process that will be subject to legislative review.
Four amendments were added to the bill as well. One would provide for the dismissal of a claim against some defendants named in a lawsuit, but believed not actually involved in providing care, subject to re-filing later if new evidence is discovered; another would allow courts to speed up the timetable for producing evidence in a malpractice case to provide for timely resolution of disputes. Another amendment clarified that the Ohio State Medical Board's jurisdiction over out-of-state doctors who testify as experts in malpractice trials extends beyond the time of their actual testimony and a final amendment asks that the Ohio Supreme Court to require that a "certificate of expert review" initially accompany lawsuits for each defendant named determining that the standard of care had not been met. Overall, the legislation would prohibit the use of a health care worker's expression of sympathy as evidence of an admission of liability in a medical malpractice lawsuit, and would establish qualifications for expert witnesses who provide testimony in such cases. A complete copy of the AMC/NOMA's lobbyists analysis of HB 215 will be posted on the AMC/NOMA web site under the Medical Liability headline.