With vote near, spending accelerated on initiatives

Less than a week before voters go to the polls and nearly two weeks since absentee ballots began arriving in the mail, statewide initiative campaigns are spending freely on an onslaught of television commercials and campaign brochures.

The campaign over Initiative 330, which seeks to impose new limits on medical malpractice cases, has set records for campaign spending on both sides. When money from the other initiative involving malpractice – Initiative 336 – is added, the legal profession and the health care industry will spend more than $14 million this year in an attempt to rewrite state malpractice laws.

Meanwhile, a group opposing I-330 called on veterans to vote no on the measure, saying it would put them at a disadvantage for treatment. And a group backing the measure planned a rally for Friday morning in Spokane to generate support in the medical community.

Other initiative campaigns also spent heavily in the last half of October, with a group trying to keep voters from repealing the new state gas tax reporting about $2 million in campaign expenditures against Initiative 912, and a group that supports further restrictions on smoking spending about $471,000 in favor of Initiative 901.

But the most money and the most activity surrounds I-330.

“It’s unpatriotic to force us to give up our rights,” Skip Dreps, a Vietnam veteran and the government relations director of Paralyzed Veterans of America, said at a press conference to denounce I-330.

Dreps and other veterans said they objected to limits on certain types of malpractice damages, known as noneconomic damages because they aren’t tied to lost income or the cost of restorative medical care. They also oppose provisions that could require patients at a veterans care home to agree to seek arbitration rather than a lawsuit, should any malpractice occur.

“This doesn’t protect the individual, it protects the doctors,” said Alan Hagelthorn, a former Air Force B-52 pilot.

Mike McCarthy, Veterans Affairs regional counsel in Portland, confirmed that any changes in state malpractice law would apply to veterans who receive treatment from the federal government.

Supporters of I-330 said veterans would be treated no better or worse than anyone else if the initiative passes. Veterans are “just another group they (opponents) are trying to scare,” said Rob Menaul, senior vice president of the state Hospital Association.

“Every citizen appreciates the sacrifice that veterans made. They deserve the very best care,” said Tom Curry of the state Medical Association and a spokesman for I-330. “This is a necessary step to balance the needs of the community with the needs of the individual.”

To underscore their point, the I-330 campaign has scheduled a rally with members of the medical community at 10 a.m. Friday at Sixth Avenue and Division Street.

Supporters say high malpractice awards lead to higher malpractice insurance premiums, which lead to more doctors quitting practice in key specialties. Opponents dispute all of those numbers, saying malpractice cases are a very small part of the complex economic factors facing the health care industry.

The other malpractice proposal on the ballot would not limit malpractice cases. Instead, I-336 includes provisions to remove licenses from any doctor who has three malpractice jury awards within a 10-year period and requires insurance companies to submit to public hearings on any premium increase higher than 15 percent.

The two initiatives deal with different sections of state law, so voters could pass both and not create an immediate legal challenge. They could pick one and not the other, or vote no on both and leave the law as it is.

In recent months the focus of mailers, commercials and campaign events has centered mainly on I-330, so much so that in late October the pro-336 campaign spent the lion’s share of its money, $600,000, on a contribution to the no on 330 campaign.