BROOKINGS-HARBOR CITIZENS DISCUSS BALLOT MEASURES

Ballot measures affecting medical care and insurance issues were among
the topics discussed Thursday at a forum at the Chetco Community
Public Library.

The Curry County League of Women Voters shifted the political
spotlight from candidates to the eight ballot measures facing Oregon
voters.

League members Judy Kaplan, Georgia Nowlin and Tom Broderick provided
a crowd of about a dozen South Coast residents background of five
selected measures and addressed questions about them. Measures 32
(mobile home fees), 33 (medical marijuana), 35 (medical malpractice
awards), 37 (land use regulations) and 38 (workers compensation
insurance) were all discussed.

Kaplan said the aim of the forum was to "provide objective, unbiased
information so voters can make informed decisions."

Medical marijuana and malpractice insurance and lawsuits received most
of the discussion. Measure 33 attempts to reform medical marijuana
use. Measure 35 seeks to limit non economic damages that can be litigated.

Broderick handled presentation of the ballot measures affecting
medical issues. Broderick is a retired hospital administrator with 40
years experience.

Measure 33 would amend the Medical Marijuana Act of 1998. It would
allow patients and caregivers to buy medical marijuana from state
licensed distributors. It would also increase the amount of marijuana
patients could possess and grow.

Cost for the measure is estimated at approximately $135,000 with a
$340,000 to $560,000 annual cost. Fees patients pay for the marijuana
would account for most of the cost, according to ballot literature.

Broderick said the ballot measure would considerably raise the volume
of marijuana available for the program. He said it would include two
categories of caregivers, who could prescribe medical marijuana. He
said it would create nonprofit agencies that would sell and distribute
the drug. And it would limit the number of patients to 10 that a
caregiver could handle.

"It really changes it from a personal program to a much farther
reaching program," said Broderick, who related personal experiences
with similar programs in California. "The current system is not
regulated much at all."

Broderick and a number of people in the audience concluded the measure
would provide more oversight and regulation than exists in the current
program.

Some people questioned local costs to administer the program.

"It seems like more oversight than the current system," said Mary Lou
Milstone.

Law enforcement agencies oppose the measure. They claim increases in
possession and growth limits would make it difficult to enforce
unlawful possession, distribution and transportation laws.

Currently, there are more than 10,000 patients in the care of 1,413
doctors in the state program.

"Is this jumping from the frying pan into the fire? Or is it an
improvement over what we have now?" Kaplan said. "It's a challenging
issue.

Measure 35 would limit non economic damages a plaintiff and spouse
could seek in medical malpractice cases to $500,000. The measure
allows for that limit to be adjusted in relation to cost of living
indexes.

Arguments for approval of the measure are that medical services and
health care in certain areas has been decreased because of the high
cost of malpractice insurance.

Arguments against the measure claim other measures should be tried
before arbitrary limits are set. It has also been said it is a
patient's constitutional right to allow a jury to determine damage
costs.

Broderick also lent first-hand experience to this discussion.

He said California, where he was the administrator of a hospital,
dealt with this problem 25 years ago.

"That system has worked for 25 years. I can say for many, many years,
that system has worked very well," he said.

Broderick said the system in California allowed many of the cases to
be settled out of court. He said during his tenure his hospital he
would see four to five claims per month, but saw only one case ever go
to trial.

He said part of the reason for that percentage is because of the way
cases are handled in California.

Broderick explained that from 1987 to 1999 Oregon had a $500,000 cap
on compensation for non economic damages. In 1999, the state supreme
court ruled the cap violated the state constitution which provided all
civil cases be ruled upon by a jury.

Broderick said in the years since that cap was eliminated, malpractice
awards have risen from $870,000 to over $3 million.

He said the 65 percent increase in annual awards has resulted in 75 to
175 percent higher insurance rates.

Emergency room, neurosurgeons, obstetricians, orthopedists and
anesthesiologists are among those most affected by higher insurance
rates.

Opponents of the measure say it doesn't guarantee lower premiums.
Their argument also says the measure does nothing to regulate or
punish doctors responsible for the malpractice cases, and the measure
would hurt people who have suffered from negligent care.

Measure 38 proposes to abolish the State Accident Insurance Fund,
which provides workers compensation insurance to small businesses.

Problems with mismanagement and excessive withholding of reserve funds
have spawned federal investigations of the state-run service. They
have also led to Ballot Measure 38.

Proponents claim 15 states have lower workers compensation rates than
Oregon. Nine of those have no state fund. They also claim workers
compensation rates have decreased in states that have abolished their
state funds.

Opponents of the measure claim it is an attempt to grab market share
by Liberty Northwest, an insurance company which sponsored it.

The initiative was placed on the ballot by 87,479 verified signatures.
Jim Bernau and Lorinda Gauthier were the chief petitioners.

Opponents claim a 98 percent renewal rate by SAIF policy holders and
an 80 percent good to excellent service rating shows SAIF is doing a
good job. The fund insures 60 percent of small businesses in the state.

"As a business owner, I do not want to see SAIF go away," said Nowlin,
co-owner of Brandy Peak distillery. "I think you're killing the golden
goose."