The Iowa legislature’s second “funnel” deadline passed on March 31. In theory, aside from appropriations bills, any legislation that hasn’t yet cleared one chamber and at least one committee in the other chamber is no longer eligible for consideration for this year. However, leaders can resurrect “dead” bills late in the session or include their provisions in appropriations bills. The Des Moines Register’s William Petroski and Brianne Pfannenstiel reviewed important bills that did or did not make it through the funnel. James Q. Lynch and Rod Boshart published a longer list in the Cedar Rapids Gazette.
This paragraph caught my eye from the Register’s story.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Dix, R-Shell Rock, said everything that lawmakers are doing is a reflection of learning from states where prosperity is occurring as a result of business-friendly policies. That formula includes low-cost government, innovative public services, and easing regulatory burdens on businesses to spur job creation and to allow Iowa companies to compete in a global marketplace, he added.
Not so much: Republicans following a similar playbook drove Kansas and Louisiana into the ground. Wisconsin has performed poorly in employment growth, poverty reduction, household income, and wages compared to neighboring Minnesota, where corporate interests didn’t capture state government.
This is an open thread: all topics welcome. I enclose below links and clips about bills I haven’t had time to write about yet. Two are “business-friendly” policies that will hurt Iowans suffering because of exposure to asbestos or medical malpractice. One would make local governments and first responders less accountable by excluding all “audio, video and transcripts of 911 calls involving injured victims of crimes or accidents” from Iowa’s open records law.
Quick update on House File 484, the bill to dismantle the Des Moines Water Works: once seen as almost a sure thing due to covert support from the Iowa Farm Bureau, the bill was on the House debate calendar for many days in March but never brought to the floor. Majority Leader Chris Hagenow put House File 484 on the “unfinished business” calendar on March 30, after House Republicans voted down a Democratic motion to exclude it from that list.
Opponents of the Water Works bill have become more confident lately, as several GOP representatives and senators have said privately they oppose the legislation. In addition, a Harper Polling survey commissioned by the Water Works showed that 68 percent of respondents oppose disbanding independent water works boards in Des Moines, West Des Moines, and Urbandale in order to give city councils control over the water utility. The same poll indicated that by a 55 percent to 23 percent margin, respondents said an independent board of trustees rather than the city council is “best qualified to manage your local water utility.” By an 88 percent to 5 percent margin, respondents said “people who live in the community” and not the state legislature should have “the final say” on municipal utilities. No one should be complacent, because powerful forces are behind this legislation. Republican leaders could attach Water Works language to must-pass budget bills.
P.S.- The legislature is supposed to wrap up its business this month and adjourn for the year before the end of April. I suspect that even with unified Republican control, the session will go into overtime. Lawmakers haven’t finalized budget targets for the 2018 fiscal year yet. With less money to go around following the recent downgrade in revenue forecasts, and legislators of both parties calling for a review of increasingly expensive tax credits and exemptions, I expect several more weeks of behind the scenes negotiations before the House and Senate are ready to approve appropriations bills.
Senate File 465 would undermine medical malpractice lawsuits, capping “non-economic damages — damages awarded for pain, suffering, physical impairment, inconvenience and mental anguish among others — at $250,000 as well as create a certificate of merit, requiring plaintiffs’ lawyers to submit proof of medical malpractice at the beginning of the case.”
Senators approved the bill along party lines on March 20. (The companion bill House File 487 is on the “unfinished business” list.)
Chelsea Keenan reported for the Cedar Rapids Gazette that the Iowa Medical Society, the main group representing doctors, asserts that “the malpractice climate” makes it harder to recruit physicians to work here.
“This bill creates an arbitrary, government-mandated, one-size-fits-all cap on the value of life, it bars available experts from testifying on the victim’s behalf and it increases the cost of litigation,” said the Iowa Association for Justice in a statement. The organization represents 700 trial lawyers across the state.
“There is no rationale for this bill, whatsoever. Rates of medical malpractice lawsuits in Iowa have fallen by over 50 percent in the past 15 years, and Iowa doctors pay some of the lowest medical liability premiums in the country.”
Senate Republicans say the bill that passed on Monday strikes a balance between the needs of doctors and patients. The original legislation included a provision that would have capped contingency fee arrangements for the plaintiff’s attorney at 35 percent — this could have made lawyers less likely to pick up these cases, which are expensive to litigate.
An amendment put forth by Sen. Charles Schneider, R-West De Moines, and adopted by the Senate, took out that portion of the bill. What’s more, he said, the bill does not cap economic damages — lost wages or hurt potential earnings — or punitive damages.
Petroski had more from the Senate debate in his story for the Des Moines Register.
Sen. Charles Schneider, R-West Des Moines, said Iowa ranks 43rd nationally per capita in doctors. One of the key factors is the cost of liability insurance premiums, which are not competitive compared to neighboring states, he said. Thirty-five other states have caps on medical liability, he noted.
“Clearly, we need to make our malpractice climate more inviting. This bill is an effort to do things that many other states are doing, and in some cases have been doing for decades,” Schneider said.
Sen. Nate Boulton, D-Des Moines, argued passionately against the bill, describing it as “one-size fits all justice” that would undermine Iowa’s jury system in a heartless manner. Because of major errors by Iowa’s medical providers, some Iowans are unable to bathe themselves, walk, and communicate; and some will never work in their lifetimes, he said.
“This is preventable. We are talking about botched procedures and sometimes mistakes made knowing the consequences of cutting corners,” Boulton said.
The Des Moines Register’s editorial board was harsh in its assessment:
Iowans file fewer medical malpractice lawsuits per capita than residents in almost every other state, and the number of lawsuits has fallen by 39 percent over the last decade. Less than 1 percent of civil lawsuits filed in Iowa are related to medical errors.
The legislation is another example of lawmakers proposing a “solution” to a problem that does not exist. So they fabricated one, perhaps in an attempt to justify the bill. […]
“Iowa physicians pay among the lowest medical liability rates in the nation,” according to physician recruitment material published by the IMS in 2012. “The statistics tell it all — Iowa has an excellent liability climate.”
This month Wallet Hub, a personal finance website, ranked Iowa the best state in the country to practice medicine. Iowa ranked fifth among states with the least expensive malpractice liability insurance.
Governor Terry Branstad has already signed Senate File 376, which puts new restrictions on lawsuits filed by people exposed to asbestos, which can cause the often-fatal lung cancer mesothelioma. Republicans have dishonestly depicted the bill as a way to “ensure a streamlined process for victims of cancers caused by workplace-related asbestos.” During the Iowa Senate debate, Majority Leader Dix and floor manager Brad Zaun claimed they were trying to protect future victims from the prospect of money running out of trust funds created to pay for asbestos claims.
As is often the case, the lobbyist declarations tell the real story. No health advocacy organizations registered in favor of the bill. Its only supporters are insurance companies, attorneys representing corporate clients, and business lobby groups.
During the Iowa House debate, Democratic State Representative Mary Wolfe warned, “all this does is restrict the ability of people who have suffered a life-threatening exposure to asbestos to recover […] It makes a very difficult situation even more so. And it certainly isn’t a good bill for the working people of Iowa.” Barbara Clark, whose mother died of mesothelioma after workplace exposure to asbestos, argued in a guest column for the Des Moines Register,
Before Mom died, my parents took the asbestos industry to court. They were angry and wanted some measure of justice. Now, some of our state lawmakers are trying to prevent Iowa families devastated by asbestos diseases from holding the industry accountable.
The bill (SSB1095/HSB104) would create loopholes that would allow the asbestos industry to sabotage cases brought against them by delaying the trial until victims die. It would add arbitrary and unnecessary legal burdens for those suffering from asbestosis. And it would do nothing to address this public health crisis or make it easier for asbestos victims to hold companies accountable.
Worst of all, the asbestos industry and the lawmakers pushing the bill have argued that it would protect families like mine. That is insulting and entirely false. This bill would have only hurt my mother when she sought accountability and justice for her imminent death.
We elected our lawmakers in Des Moines to represent the people of Iowa, not out-of-state asbestos corporations and their insurance companies. They must show they are committed to families like mine and reject this awful bill.
All the House Republicans voted for the asbestos bill, as did every Senate Republican present except for Rick Bertrand.
House File 571 was not on my radar until a few days ago. Introduced late in the game (after the first funnel deadline had passed), It sailed through the Iowa House unanimously with almost no one sounding the alarm. (CORRECTION: An earlier draft of the same bill, House File 213, was introduced in early February and cleared the State Government Committee before the first funnel.) Ryan Foley and Barbara Rodriguez reported for the Associated Press,
The bill would declare that audio, video and transcripts of 911 calls involving injured victims of crimes or accidents are confidential medical records and exempt from the Iowa open records law. In addition, any calls involving juveniles under the age of 18 would automatically be confidential. […]
Rep. Dean Fisher, a Montour Republican, said it was crafted in response to last year’s release to the Associated Press of 911 calls that helped expose an unusual string of gun mishaps in Tama County. Two teenage girls were unintentionally shot and killed and a third teen and her mother were injured in a one-year span in the county of only 20,000 residents. […]
Emergency management coordinator Mindy Benson, who had released the calls in response to the AP’s open records request, complained to Fisher that she felt the release invaded the privacy of the families and sought a change in the law, Fisher said on the House floor.
“These grieving families simply wanted their privacy,” he said.
Two of the three families affected, however, had agreed to speak to AP in the hopes of raising awareness about gun safety.
Late last week, after House File 571 had cleared the House and a Senate committee, lobbyists representing the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and the state Department of Public Safety registered against registered against the bill. Strangely, lobbyists representing the Iowa Broadcasters Association and the Iowa Newspaper Association are still registered as “undecided.” I am seeking comment from those organizations on why media advocates are not opposing on a bill that would restrict journalists’ access to information.
House Democrat Wolfe commented on Twitter that she “shouldn’t have” voted for this bill, which was not on her radar. Like me, she found it “odd” that media organizations hadn’t registered against the new exemption to the open records law.
With so many far-reaching bills moving quickly through the legislature this year, it’s not surprising that this one failed to attract attention.