***The Iowa Standard is an independent media voice. We rely on the financial support of our readers to exist. Please consider a one-time sign of support or becoming a monthly supporter at $5, $10/month - whatever you think we're worth! If you’ve ever used the phrase “Fake News” — now YOU can actually DO something about it! You can also support us on PayPal at [email protected] or Venmo at Iowa-Standard-2018 or through the mail at: PO Box 112 Sioux Center, IA 51250

Over the past two weeks, Iowa’s hospitals and physicians and supposedly anyone else with a vested interest in healthcare told us how important it was to ensure access to healthcare in rural Iowa. They also stressed the importance of recruiting healthcare providers to Iowa.

That’s why lawmakers had no choice but to insert a $1 million cap at noneconomic damages for Iowans who suffer medical malpractice (or $2 million if a hospital is guilty of medical malpractice — because apparently if someone suffers pain & suffering from a medical malpractice event it is twice as painful and sufferable if it happens at a hospital).

Today the Iowa Senate will hold a hearing on a bill that reforms the Certificate of Need process. Repealing or reforming the Certificate of Need will undoubtedly help with all the things we were told the past few weeks our medical groups care so much about — access and recruiting providers.

If you expected consistency from the medical field, you should be disappointed.

The Iowa Hospital Association, Genesis Health System, Great River Health System and Broadlawns are all registered against the bill.

Only Informed Choice Iowa and Americans for Prosperity are registered in support of the bill, which would increase access and potentially even help with recruitment.

Every other organization registered on the bill is “undecided.”

It’s really weird to see such a shift from the medical community. So strange to see people who were so genuinely worried just last week about rural access and recruitment now stand against rural access and recruitment.


One might be left to wonder if putting a cap on noneconomic damages in cases of medical malpractice had less to do with rural access and recruitment and more to do with $$$.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here