Recommendation to request City Council to oppose any bills or ballot measures that would weaken the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), thereby increasing health care costs for state and local governments and limiting patient access to health care services; Request City Attorney to draft a resolution in opposition to bills or ballot measures that would weaken the MICRA, thereby increasing health care costs for state and local governments and limiting patient access to health care services; and Request that the City of Long Beach become an official, non dues paying member of Californians Allied for Patient Protection (CAPP), a coalition which is dedicated to supporting MICRA.
The recommendation for the Office of Council Member Sujatha Lowenthal with a request to the City Council to oppose any bills or ballot measures that would weaken the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, thereby increasing health care costs for state and local governments and limiting patient access to health care services. And request the city attorney to draft a resolution in opposition to bills or ballot measures that would weaken this act and request that the City of Long Beach become an official non dues paying member of California's allied for patient protection. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over now to Councilmember Lenka. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I would like to make the motion to approve and add a few comments. The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act has protected patients and our fragile health care network in California for over 35 years. Its original purpose is still relevant today to ensure that injured patients are fairly compensated, medical liability rates are kept in check, and that physicians and clinics can remain in practice. Treating patients. Eroding Michaels protections to increase lawsuit payouts will hurt community clinics, especially community clinics, doctors, hospitals and other providers by increasing medical liability costs and threatening the health care system's ability to take on more patients. As California implements the Affordable Care Act, the timing of the collision of these two items couldn't be worse, especially since we are struggling to implement the Affordable Care Act. Attached to this item is an extensive list of micro supporters that formed the Californians of Allied for Patient Protection. More than 800 organizations including hospitals, community clinics, county and city governments, business and taxpayer groups, labor unions and members of public safety that support Micra and oppose any changes. This is a broad coalition across the political and health care spectrum and council members. I would like to ask you for your support. Thank you. Q Councilmember, I'm sorry, did you make a motion? Did did an emotion on the floor get the motion in a second? Councilmember O'DONNELL. Quick question. I know I've. Had a variety discussions on this topic as well. I thought we were listed on the list of micros supporters, my incorrect on it. So I thought we had discussed it. I did see your name. On a list not too long ago. I didn't see it on a list. We had brought it up in some conversation but did not formally take a position. And I had checked that. And Mr. Modica or his staff. Oh, there she is. She can respond. I know we. Yeah. Maybe we can let let's go and look staff respond real quick on. That and then you just hang let me just clarify what I know. I saw it on a list and I don't know if it said the city of Long Beach or it said the Long Beach Department of Health or Health Department. I don't know. But I, I given that we have doctors and provide medical services, I thought we were already on this. List of the city council. The city of Long Beach has not taken a position on this, but we are awaiting your direction. Okay. So so you're saying there's been no official position on behalf of the council, correct? Correct. Okay. Mr. O'Brien, do you want to continue the floor? No, no, I just I. I know I saw it on the list at some point. Either it's not there or I'm in. Very incorrect. But we're going to edit, it appears. Councilor Johnson. Well, thank you, Vice Mayor. There's certainly a very contentious conversation that's been happening since 1975. I think the issue here is how do you balance the rights of injured parties to be fairly compensated, particularly when something goes horribly wrong and people are negligent versus the right of doctors to be treated fairly and certainly the need to keep health care costs low and have access. I think my concern about this item is that whether or not Micra was a good idea in 1975, it basically locked in an amount $250,000 without inflation. So if we assume for argument's sake that two or $3,000 is the right figure in 1975, why would that possibly be the right figure in 2014 given inflation? So what happens right now in our micros at every year, that amount effectively goes down. And I just don't think that's good policy. I think on a wide variety of issues, for example, along with his Campaign Reform Act, we we build in inflationary adjustments to make sure that once they come to a number , that number changes with time. You know, and a number of years of assuming we'd never made the change to fit $200,000, you know, might buy a Honda Civic in a number of years from now. Do we really think that's the right number? So with that, I'm going to go and make the motion to receive and file this item. There's been a substitute motion to receive and file. And a second on that. Councilmember DeLong. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I strongly support this item. I think it's a great idea. It certainly helps in making health care more affordable, which is obviously something very concerning to the community. But I would do a substitute substitute, which is for the city to take a position as recommended in the original item, but also send it to our request staff to come back with perhaps a detailed list of actions that the city could take and what some potential time table would be to support it. A second. Okay. There's been a substitute. Substitute. And can you can you repeat that second piece council word on. So the same piece is to direct staff to come back with a list of items that the city could take to advocate on behalf of this item in an associate estimated timetable. Councilmember Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor, and I appreciate the discussion that's taken place. So certainly, given a city such as Long Beach, where affordable health care is not only a challenge but seems insurmountable at times. I think this is certainly the time that we want to ensure access first and foremost, prior to considering any other priorities. And right now we have a great percentage of our residents who don't have health care and who are struggling to learn enough about signing up for affordable the Affordable Care Act. And anything that erodes that option is something that frightens me and concerns me deeply. You know, I won't trivialize it by suggesting that we're a tale of two cities, but we don't all share the same narrative. Everyone on this dais has health care that is not reflected across the board with our residents. And that's an unfortunate fact. And I'd like to ensure that we stand up and be sure that we don't further erode access to affordable care. And I think starting by supporting this is a good start. So council members, I do urge your support. Thank you. Councilmember Austin. It's just a point of clarification. I wanted to find out exactly where this ballot initiative is in the process. Had the signatures qualify and has it been assigned a number? Where are we in the process? Might we be jumping the gun here? I believe it has qualified for the do you have the sufficient signatures for that? And then the language is available as well. I'm going to let the city staff come in on that as well. Mr. Hanging has a comment. I believe this ballot measure is still up for circulation. It has the attorney general's title in summary, but I believe February is when we find out whether or not it has gathered signatures. And that is the reason why I seconded Councilmember Johnson's motion to receive and file this just because we are there's a lot of uncertainty as I look at the list of supporters for this this coalition to protect Micra the there are very few municipalities that are that are currently listed here and again I don't want to see us jump the gun here I do understand the merits in the of the argument to to to to support this initiative. But at the same time, I'm not sure if it will even qualify. And by doing so, what message are we sending? Constable Lowenthal. Thank you. And I just wanted to add that we are one of the few cities in the state of California that has a health department. And perhaps our concern and obligation as a municipality would be greater in that regard. And so I take that very seriously. Hosting a Department of Health right here in the city of Long Beach and see it as a privilege and also see that it is our obligation to send a message, especially because we have a health department here that is working to ensure that the Affordable Care Act is is is something that our residents have access to. Got somewhere, Austin. So are we asserting that if we don't support this, our residents won't have access to the Affordable Care Act and Affordable Care if this somehow goes awry? No, I'm drawing the nexus between affordable care and the dangers that bless you and the dangers of increasing the meritless lawsuits and the amounts that can be paid out. There is that nexus. So the higher those costs are, the more primary care providers we drive out of that business. And so that's the nexus. But no, no, to answer your question specifically, absolutely not. By not supporting this, it doesn't mean that people won't be able to sign up for the health care. The nexus I'm drawing is to the affordability. There's a direct link to affordability by ensuring that certain costs are kept down. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. Well, thank you, Vice Mayor, and I certainly appreciate the diversity of opinions on this very contentious issue. But I think it's important to note that meritless lawsuits lose. This is not about that. The question is for the lawsuits with merit, where there's been proven negligence and we have major damage to somebody's someone who's perhaps in a wheelchair for life or has lost vision or has had some other horrible thing happen to them that shouldn't have by definition or negligence. We're telling that person that under no circumstances can you have more than two or $3,000 for your pain and suffering, even though that was the same amount in 1975. So I guess I'm just kind of curious from the body I haven't heard so far what the possible reason is for basically not having an inflationary adjustment. Do we really believe that that person who's been permanently disabled, for example, should every year receive less and less just by the nature of inflation? I mean, I don't understand the reason unless we just don't believe in medical negligence lawsuits. And maybe that's what we're saying here. So I do oppose the motion. And keep in mind, this is not about meritless lawsuits. This is about people who've been seriously harmed and have a jury has kind of conclusion that they are merited, some compensation, further tremendous harm. And whether or not that person should have an award that's adjusted for inflation or whether you should pretend like this is 1975. So I urge a no vote. And I'd be curious to hear if anyone has a reason why we oppose basing inflationary adjustments here and we support it for virtually all other policies . Counter Ron Paul. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. And. Well, all meritless lawsuits don't lose. You and I both know that. So but that's that's not to be debated. Actually, on the second page of the agenda item, there is a cost implication there on how local budgets would be increased as a result of raising the cap from $250,000 to 1.1 million , as the item suggests. And so that's not inflation since 1975. That's more than that. But I'd like to go ahead and just vote. Yeah, I'll call for the question. Okay. The question has been called, is any objection going to go to public comment? It is somewhat oblique, but it does. Is of concern on the part of the appropriate bill to keep medical costs down and to prefer and to make medical capacity even further. I would suggest that they be made a health certificate, emergency aid certificate, given for two hour sessions of the procedures to be had. It often takes 10 minutes for the paramedics to get there, or even a lot more time. During that time, a person could die or suffer up the agony if not served. That should be done at the school and biology class. But I would guess that we should be even open to the public to have to have these training sessions issued. It could be covered monetarily by the Red Cross and by funds given to the fire department. Those two entities could contribute to be the sponsors of it, or just be a health official, a nurse at school. How often have we wondered? What would we do if somebody was giving birth to a baby or is choking on food or had a seizure epileptic? I dare say not even the council knows what to do. What you do could be covered in a couple of intensive 2 hours at the most to cure this problem in medicine . I think that this would reduce the cost of medicine. Might she not show? I would also affirm competency for these dire situations. Mr. Vice Mayor, I want to point out to Mr. Dunne as the registered nurse practitioner on this council, I could respond to any of those problems. Thank you. Well, certainly glad that I think I'm in good hands, but I just want to. Not my district today. Thank you, madam. Okay. Thank you. The question's been called. So we're going to go out and take any public comment. I don't see any other public comment. There is a there is a substitute substitute, which was Councilmember De Long's motion. And we're going to take a vote on that. I'm sorry. The substitute substitute was wrong. You want to repeat it? Yes, it supported the original motion but added directions to staff to come back with recommended list of items that we could advocate as well as an estimated timeline. Okay. So that's the item on the floor. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes. Council member, Neil. Motion carries seven votes. One vote no. Next item, Johnson. The attorneys. Adam 14 A report from the city manager in the Financial Management Department, along with Parks Recreation Marine to approve the award of a contract to biotech construction company for Bixby Park Bluff. Improvements in amount not to exceed $2.450 million.