2 Public Citizen Statements
Two Years After the September 11th Attacks,
Nuclear Plants Are Still Vulnerable
Statement by Joan Claybrook, President of Public Citizen
Over the past two years, Congress and the Bush administration havelaunched two wars and poured billions of
dollars into fighting terrorism. So it is shameful and baffling that they have failed to
address one of the most glaring vulnerabilities in the United States - our insecure nuclear power plants.
The 103 nuclear reactors in the country were never designed to withstand the type of attack we saw in 2001, and
we now know that al Qaeda specifically discussed targeting nuclear facilities.
Nearly half of the facilities tested under a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) program between 1991
and 2001 had serious vulnerabilities identified. Those tests have been discontinued, and the
NRC now claims that security has been enhanced and there's nothing to worry about.
But a 2002 report by the Project on Government Oversight found that security forces at nuclear power plants
remain understaffed, under-equipped and under-trained. Further, nuclear facility employees
surveyed in 2002 by the NRC Inspector General stated that safety training was based on outdated scenarios and left nuclear sites
vulnerable to sabotage. The agency issued new security regulations, but the rules were crafted in secret meetings
and never opened to public comment. Public Citizen and the California group Mothers for Peace sued
the agency this summer, so that the public - not just the nuclear industry - can have input on the rules.
President Bush is asking Congress to authorize $87 billion for military and reconstruction costs in Iraq, and many
lawmakers have already pledged to grant that request. If they are willing to commit this
enormous sum of money to the administration's war on terror, it would follow that Congress would mandate security improvements at
commercial nuclear facilities.
Instead, Congress has almost diabolically worked against any legislation to improve nuclear security. Lawmakers
have stripped security amendments introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) from 2002
energy legislation and allowed the Nuclear Security Act of 2002 - which would have established an interagency task force to evaluate
security, emergency response and evacuation plans at nuclear facilities - to languish.
Now, House and Senate conferees are meeting to reconcile another package of energy legislation, passed in both
Houses, that piles on subsidies for fossil fuels industries and for nuclear power, including
incentives for nuclear research and development, tax breaks for nuclear operators and federal matching funds for licensing new reactors.
Both bills also reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act, which limits the amount of insurance nuclear operators must
carry and puts taxpayers on the hook for potentially billions in damages in the event of a nuclear disaster.
But there are no provisions of either bill that address nuclear security. It is unacceptable that energy legislation could pass
without taking these steps to protect all of us.
One year ago, Public Citizen joined 10 other national environmental and public interest groups to demand that
lawmakers enact legislation to address security concerns. We said then that another year must not be
allowed to pass without action on this matter.
Another year has passed, and millions who live and work near nuclear facilities are still exposed to unconscionable
risks. Congress, what are you thinking?
***********************************************************
Maryland Doctors Do Not Face a Medical Malpractice Insurance Crisis,
Public Citizen Report Shows
Real Health Problem Is That Only 3 Percent of Maryland Doctors Are Responsible for 51 Percent of Medical
Malpractice Payouts to Injured Patients
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Contrary to claims by the Maryland State Medical Society and Medical Mutual
insurance company, physicians in Maryland are not facing a "crisis" in medical malpractice insurance rates caused
by a rash of malpractice lawsuits and skyrocketing jury awards, according to a Public Citizen report released
today.
Data from government sources show that in recent years the number of medical malpractice lawsuits per physician
in Maryland has declined significantly; the total and average amounts of medical malpractice
payouts to victims have declined dramatically; the number of $1 million-plus payouts has plummeted; and the doctor population is
increasing.
These findings stand in stark contrast to claims made by the Medical Society and Medical Mutual, the largest
insurer of doctors in the state - claims that were used to justify a recent 28 percent increase in
medical malpractice insurance rates granted by the state insurance department. Both groups are gearing up to demand that the state
legislature pass a law that will significantly limit a patient's ability to hold a health care provider fully accountable for
negligence.
The study's most dramatic finding is that just 3 percent of Maryland's doctors have been responsible for 50.8
percent of malpractice payouts to patients since 1990, when the federal National Practitioner Data Bank
(NPDB) began collecting such information. These 576 doctors each have made at least two payouts. Conversely, 89.4
percent of Maryland's doctors have never made a malpractice payout.
"There is no medical malpractice lawsuit problem in Maryland," said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's
Congress Watch and an author of the study. "Marylanders need to look beyond the scare tactics
of the Medical Society. It would be a huge mistake to restrict patients' legal rights so that they cannot hold doctors, hospitals and
insurance companies fully accountable for deaths or serious injuries."
The 58-page report, The Facts About Medical Malpractice in Maryland, is available at: http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/medmal/articles.cfm?ID=10429
Other major findings about Maryland in the report include:
- The number of medical malpractice legal claims filed per physician has dropped 17.6 percent since 1996 - from
3.4 claims per 100 physicians in 1996 to 2.8 claims per 100 physicians in 2002, according to Maryland
Office of Health Claims Arbitration data.
- After annual medical malpractice payouts reported by the NPDB are adjusted for medical inflation, the total
amount dropped 17.9 percent from 1996 to 2002. Malpractice payouts declined from $71.3 million in
1996 to $58.5 million in 2002 in adjusted dollars. In equivalent dollars, liability insurers paid $12.8 million less in 2002 than
they paid in 1996.
- The mean medical malpractice payout to injured patients dropped 29 percent from 1996 to 2002, after adjusting
for medical inflation, according to NPDB data. The mean malpractice payout dropped from
$310,100 in 1996 to $220,083 in 2002 - $90,017 less.
- There were only three medical malpractice payouts of $1 million in each of the past two years, compared with
eight payouts of $1 million or more in 1996 and 2000, according to NPDB data.
- There is no "exodus" of doctors from Maryland. The doctor population
has increased an average of 1.2 percent a year since 1996, and the state has the fourth highest ratio of doctors-to-population among all 50
states and Washington, D.C.
- The cost of medical negligence and errors to Maryland patients and consumers is considerable. Based on findings
by the Institute of Medicine, Public Citizen estimates that there are 836 to 1,862 hospital
deaths in Maryland each year that are due to preventable medical errors – costing residents, families and communities $323 million to $551
million each year. This is far below the annual $155.1 million cost of medical malpractice insurance to Maryland's
health care providers.
- Doctors with repeated malpractice claims against them suffer few consequences. Only 20.6 percent (37 of 180)
of Maryland doctors who made three or more malpractice payouts since 1990 were disciplined by the
Maryland oard of Physician Quality Assurance. Moreover, Maryland in 2002 ranked 46th among all states and the District of
Columbia for the frequency at which it takes serious disciplinary actions against doctors
for incompetence, misprescribing drugs, sexual misconduct, criminal convictions, ethical lapses or other offenses, according to Public
Citizen's analysis.
While the report finds that Medical Mutual's 28 percent rate hike is not justified, it found that overall, since 1996
Medical Mutual kept its rate increases for malpractice insurance well behind the rising cost of
medical services. For instance its "midpoint" premium (for general surgery) declined 15.9 percent from 1996 to 2002. This suggests the
company kept rates artificially low to gain market share. Medical Mutual also had much lower investment returns in
recent years. The combination of these two factors, and other problems with the "insurance cycle,"
suggest that industry economics - not lawsuits - were the impetus behind the company's request for a 28 percent rate increase.
- Homeowners' insurance rates have increased 8.6 percent a year since
1996 - at least twice as fast as Medical Mutual's insurance rates - suggesting an insurance industry, not litigation, problem.
###
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. with 3,600 members in
Maryland. For more information, visit www.medicalmalpracticefacts.org