Medical malpractice bill yet to be heard in Senate committee. Major campaign donors connected to issue
Mar. 9—Five Democrats on the committee where a medical malpractice bill is waiting to be heard received some of their largest campaign contributions from the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association.
There are six bills related to medical malpractice filed in the Legislature, but only one appears to have a slim path to passage: Senate Bill 176, which would curb medical malpractice liability without limiting caps in an effort to make the state more appealing to doctors. The bill has amassed 23 cosponsors, but seems unlikely to pass this session, as it's been assigned to three committees, none have heard it yet, and the session is due to end in just two weeks. The Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee teased scheduling the bill over the last week, but has not yet done so.
Supporters of Senate Bill 176 argue that New Mexico's medical malpractice laws have made the state a magnet for out-of-state attorneys and discourage doctors from practicing in New Mexico, contributing to the state's provider shortage. Critics, like the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association, say the bill will make it more difficult for injured patients to sue health care providers.
In 2022, New Mexico had the highest medical malpractice insurance loss ratio in the country, according to a recent Think New Mexico report, meaning insurers paid out 183% of the premiums they took in. New Mexico was one of seven states where insurers lost money, making it more expensive for them to function in the market.
The New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association's PAC, the Committee on Individual Responsibility, spent $556,354 in the 2024 election cycle, according to the New Mexico Secretary of State database. Its largest donations were $52,000 to the Brian Egolf Speaker Fund, a political action committee that works to grow the Democratic majority in the state House, and $52,000 to the New Mexico Senate Democrats.
SB176's lead sponsor did get thousands in campaign donations from health care organizations advocating for providers in 2024 — groups that could benefit from medical malpractice reform. Some medical-field political action committees also spent large sums. The New Mexico Health Care Association is a trade organization for facility-based long-term care providers, and its PAC spent over $125,850 in the 2024 election cycle, according to the Secretary of State database. The New Mexico Hospital Association's PAC spent $84,826 for the election cycle.
Lawyer and law firm donations
In addition to the trial lawyers' generous donations to Democrats' House and Senate election arms, committee members who will debate the bill, if it ever comes up, were also beneficiaries of large donations from the trial lawyer PAC and individual lawyers.
A committee chair decides when a bill can be heard. Democratic Committee Chair Sen. Linda Lopez's highest 2024 campaign donor was the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association, with $10,500, according to the Secretary of State's database. She also received over $10,500 in donations from lawyers and law firms, according to her campaign filings.
Committee member Sen. Cindy Nava, D-Bernalillo, was the ninth-highest earner for 2024 New Mexico Legislature general election candidates, raising $164,000. Nava received $7,000 from the Trial Lawyers Association, her third-highest donor, and over $12,000 from lawyers or law firms.
Sen. Shannon Pinto, D-Tohatchi, received $6,000 from the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association, her top donor for the 2024 campaign cycle. Sen. Angel Charley, D.-Acoma, received $6,000 from the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association, her second-highest donor in 2024.
Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, D-Albuquerque, is a retired attorney and law professor. In 2024, she received $1,000 from the Trial Lawyers Association and $1,000 from Presbyterian Hospital, making the organizations tie, along with Indian Pueblos Marketing Inc., for her second-highest campaign contributor, according to the Secretary of State's database.
The only Democrat on the committee who did not get a direct donation from the Trial Lawyers Association is the bill's lead sponsor and the committee vice-chair, Sen. Martin Hickey of Albuquerque. Hickey did receive approximately $3,000 in donations from individual lawyers or law firms, according to his campaign filings.
Medical-field donations
All the Democrats in the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee, where the bill is waiting to be heard, had hundreds, and sometimes thousands, in donations from health care organizations, but SB176's lead sponsor, Hickey, had significantly more.
Hickey is a retired doctor and got thousands in campaign donations from individual physicians. The largest was $7,000 from an Albuquerque gastroenterologist. His campaign also garnered over $16,000 from health care organizations, including $3,500 from Molina Healthcare, $2,000 from Lovelace Health Systems and $3,000 from a statewide hospital trade association. Hickey was the fifth-highest earner for 2024 state Legislature general election candidates, raising $191,000 for his campaign.
Republican committee members
For most of the committee's Republican members, their top campaign contributors came from the construction and oil and gas industries. None had donations from the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association. Three of the four had donations from medical organizations comparable to most of the committee's Democrats, but none rivaled the amount of medical-field-related donations that Hickey received.
Republican Committee member Sen. Jay Block, R-Rio Rancho, is an SB176 cosponsor. Block had no significant contributions clearly connected to the medical field. He did have a $521 contribution from a personal injury lawyer in Albuquerque.
Cathy Cook is a news reporter for the Albuquerque Journal. Reach her via email at ccook@abqjournal.com. Journal staff writer Olivier Uyttebrouck contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Catastrophic': Rural public media stations brace for GOP cuts
Public media stations around the country are anxiously awaiting the results of Thursday's House vote that could claw back $1.1 billion from public broadcasting, with leaders warning that the cuts present an existential crisis for public media's future. For smaller stations — many of which are in rural parts of the country — the funding makes up critical chunks of their yearly operating budgets. Many of them are being forced to plan how they'll survive the cuts, if they can at all, public media executives say. Local leaders say the cuts would not only deprive their audiences of news and educational programming, but could also lead to a breakdown of the emergency broadcast message infrastructure that is critical for communities with less reliable internet or cellular service. 'That would mean an almost immediate disappearance of almost half our operating budget,' David Gordon, executive director of KEET in Eureka, California, said of the rescission proposal. 'Assuming [KEET] would continue, it would be in a very, very different form than it is right now.' The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that distributes federal money to public media stations via grants, said about 45 percent of public radio and TV stations it provided grants to in 2023 are in rural areas. Nearly half of those rural stations relied on CPB funding for 25 percent or more of their revenue. But that funding is being targeted for a vote as part of a push from President Donald Trump that also aims to cut $8.3 billion in foreign aid. The rescissions package would cut CPB funding already approved by Congress for the next two fiscal years. The proposal, which only needs approval from a simple majority, must pass both chambers of Congress within 45 legislative days from the day it's introduced. The House is set to vote on Thursday. If the House and Senate follow their current schedules, the deadline to vote on the cuts is July 18. If the deadline passes and Congress has not approved the cuts, the White House will be required to spend the money — but funding could still be cut in future budgets. If approved, the package would codify a series of cuts first picked out by the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. Both Trump and Elon Musk, former head of DOGE, have repeatedly accused NPR and PBS of bias against Republicans. In 2023, the Musk-owned social media site X labeled NPR as "state-affiliated media," falsely suggesting the organization produces propaganda. Trump regularly suggested cutting federal funding for public media during his first term. But his second term has brought increased hostility to mainstream media outlets, including the Associated Press, Voice of America, ABC News and CBS News. Approximately 19 percent of NPR member stations count on CPB funding for at least 30 percent of their revenue — a level at which stations would be unlikely to make up if Congress approves the rescissions, according to an NPR spokesperson. Ed Ulman, CEO of Alaska Public Media, predicts over a third of public media stations in Alaska alone would be forced to shut down 'within three to six months' if their federal funding disappears. PBS CEO Paula Kerger said in an interview she expects 'a couple dozen stations' to have 'significant' funding problems 'in the very near term' without federal funding. And she believes more could be in long-term jeopardy even if they survive the immediate aftermath of the cuts. 'A number of [stations] are hesitant to say it publicly,' she said. 'I know that some of our stations are very, very worried about the fact that they might be able to keep it pieced together for a short period of time. But for them, it will be existential.' Smaller stations with high dependency on federal funding may be forced into hard choices about where to make cuts. Some stations are considering cutting some of what little full-time staff they have, or canceling some of the NPR and PBS programming they pay to air. Phil Meyer, CEO of Southern Oregon PBS in Medford, Oregon, said his station will have to get creative just to stay afloat. 'If we eliminated all our staff, it still wouldn't save us enough money,' Meyer said. 'It becomes an existential scenario planning exercise where, if that funding does go away, we would have to look at a different way of doing business.' Some rural stations are worried they won't be able to cover the costs to maintain the satellite and broadcast infrastructure used to relay emergency broadcast messages without the federal grants. In remote areas without reliable broadband or internet coverage, public media stations can be the only way for residents to get natural disaster warnings or hear information about evacuation routes. After Hurricane Helene devastated Western North Carolina last year, leaving the region without electricity for days, Blue Ridge Public Radio in Asheville, North Carolina, provided vital information on road closure and access to drinking water for people using battery-powered and hand-cranked radios. 'I think it's pretty catastrophic,' Sherece Lamke, president and general manager of Pioneer PBS in Granite Falls, Minnesota, said of the potential consequences of losing the 30 percent of her station's budget supplied by CPB. Station managers around the country have made direct pleas to their home congressional delegations in the past year, urging them to protect public broadcasting from the rescission proposal and publicly opposing Trump's executive order calling on CPB to stop providing funding to stations. PBS, NPR and some local stations have sued the Trump administration to block the order. Brian Duggan, general manager of KUNR Public Radio in Reno, Nevada, said he's optimistic about the chances of the House voting down the funding cuts, particularly after talking with his local member of Congress, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who co-signed a statement opposing cuts to public media on Monday. 'I maintain optimism … based on my conversations with the congressman,' Duggan said. 'I will just hold out hope to see what happens ultimately on the House floor.' Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, whose public media stations are among the most dependent on federal grants in the country, told POLITICO on Wednesday she's concerned about stations in her state and is trying to get the package changed. In the wake of Trump administration pressure, some stations have seen an uptick in grassroots donations. But while larger stations in well-populated metro areas have broader, wealthier donor bases to draw on for additional support, many rural stations can only expect so much help from their community. Some of the stations in rural areas are forced to navigate the added complication of asking for donations from Republican voters as Trump rails against the public media ecosystem. 'We live in a very purple district up here,' Sarah Bignall, CEO and general manager of KAXE in Grand Rapids, Minnesota said. 'If we started kind of doing the push and the fundraising efforts that were done in the Twin Cities, it would be very off-putting to a lot of our listeners.' Increases in donations, sponsors and state funding — only some states fund public broadcasting, and other states are pushing their own cuts to public broadcasting — would be unlikely to cover the full loss of smaller stations with heavy dependence on federal grants. 'It's not like we can just go, you know, 'Let's find a million dollars somewhere else.'' Lamke said. 'If we knew how to do that, we would have.' Longtime public media employees have experience in managing the lack of certainty that comes with the nonprofit funding model. But some said that the federal cuts, along with the White House effort to eliminate the public media model, have made forecasting the future of their stations more difficult than ever. 'I think this is the biggest risk that we've had, certainly in the time that I've been in public broadcasting,' Kruger said. 'And I've been in this business 30 years.' Calen Razor contributed to this report.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What exactly does Donald Trump think the federal government is supposed to do?
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. There are some major contradictions in President Donald Trump's view of what government should do to help and protect Americans as expressed this week. He promised to 'wean' the country off federal disaster relief and wind down FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Cleaning up after hurricanes, wildfires and earthquakes should be a state function, he said. 'A governor should be able to handle it, and frankly, if they can't handle it, the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn't be governor,' Trump told reporters on Tuesday. Trump seized control of California's National Guard from Gov. Gavin Newsom, federalizing troops and putting them on the streets of Los Angeles over the objections of local and state leaders. He has threatened to send troops to other cities throughout the country. Critics, including Newsom, accused Trump of an illegal authoritarian overreach. California has sued the administration to end the callup of Marines and National Guard. Trump's actions had the effect of inciting more unrest instead of quieting it, according to the state's leaders. 'These are the acts of a dictator, not a president,' Newsom said on social media. He is primed to roll back California's looming ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, at least according to Rep. Kevin Kiley, a California Republican. Expect lawsuits. California's Environmental Protection agency has enacted its own climate change policy because the federal government, which has switched from Democrats to Republicans in recent elections, has been unable to stick to one. Trump is also trying to dismantle climate change efforts enacted by Democrats under President Joe Biden. Trump is trying to end the Department of Education in part because he says he wants to return more power over education to the states. At the same time, he's threatening state universities and school systems that want to prioritize a diverse environment. Trump has done all he can to strong-arm American institutions into ending diversity programs that are a reaction to the country's complicated racial past and is instead treating the inclusion of trans women in gendered sports as a major civil rights issue. The standoff between Trump and Newsom is in some ways the inverse of relationships between past Democratic presidents and Republican governors. While Trump is foisting troops onto Los Angeles over Newsom's objections, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, launched Operation Lone Star, which mobilized his state's National Guard to patrol the border and set up obstructions in spots when he felt federal authorities under Biden were not doing enough. Biden officials never threatened to arrest Abbott, however. Trump officials have warned mayors and Newsom against impeding federal immigration authorities. Abbott, for his part, took the initiative to put the Texas National Guard on standby as anti-deportation protests spread around the country. For instance, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders — who was Trump's first-term press secretary — was denied a request for tornado relief funds earlier this year. Sanders was ultimately able to obtain the funds by publicly lobbying and then calling Trump with a direct and personal appeal, as CNN's Gabe Cohen wrote. It would be interesting to see whether Newsom, a Democrat who has previously tangled with Trump, would be as successful. Trump has a history of denying assistance to California. He did it during his first term. In April, CNN reported that when billions of dollars in disaster funding were stalled, Republican governors had better luck at unfreezing them. The White House may already be cutting FEMA out of the equation, according to Cohen's report. He wrote that there have been multiple instances this year when FEMA has not been immediately notified that the White House had approved disaster relief packages, which led to delays in getting the funds out. Regardless, FEMA's normal way of doing business — approving aid based on nonpartisan formulas and the extent of damage — has been replaced by Trump's preferences. If a version of Trump's sweeping policy bill passes through Congress this year, it will also rewrite the social contract by which the federal government helps the lowest-income Americans. States would have to spend more to help provide health insurance through Medicaid programs, but they would also have to impose new work requirements, and millions of Americans would lose health insurance. Spending on food stamps, now called SNAP benefits, would be cut. Trump clearly wants the government to do less. Less foreign aid. Less scientific research. Less income taxes. Less responsibility to fund the social safety net. Except where he wants more. More defense spending. More tariffs (which are actually taxes). More military parades. More deportations.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Former VA Secretary McDonough to host town hall countering DC parade
Former Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough will host a military and veterans town hall in Minnesota on Friday evening as part of the Democratic National Committee's counterprogramming to the Washington military parade touted by President Donald Trump this weekend. The event — part of the party's 'People's Town Hall' series — will be held in the Twin Cities and also feature Rep. Kelly Morrison, D-Minn. McDonough served as the top VA administrator for former President Joe Biden's four years in office and stepped down from the Cabinet post in January. He has largely stayed out of the public spotlight since then. In a statement, DNC officials said the event is designed to 'honor our military members and veterans and protect the care they so bravely earned.' They'll also draw a contrast to the parade, which is centered around the Army's 250th anniversary but will take place on Trump's birthday and feature a massive procession of military equipment by the White House. Army officials have downplayed the parade's links to Trump, calling it an event to help boost public awareness of the service's history and current missions. Army plans for Trump birthday parade include 6,600 troops: Report But the size and scope of the event have ballooned since the White House intervened in planning earlier this year, with an estimated price tag of more than $40 million. This week, Trump said the event would feature 'thousands and thousands of soldiers' and 'a lot of those Army airplanes flying over the top, and tanks all over the place.' Local city officials have expressed concerns about heavy Army vehicles damaging Washington roadways, while critics of Trump have compared the event to shows of military might usually seen in foreign dictatorships. The parade and associated events are expected to bring tens of thousands of tourists to Washington for a day of military-themed celebrations, Army officials said. DNC officials have not announced plans for a formal protest of the parade, although local law enforcement is expecting some protesters along the parade route and in the nation's capital on Saturday. Before serving as VA Secretary, McDonough was White House Chief of Staff and Deputy National Security Advisor under former President Barack Obama. The Minnesota event is expected to focus on concerns surrounding the Trump administration's plans to cut staffing at VA offices. Current VA Secretary Doug Collins has proposed trimming more than 80,000 employees from the department workforce in the coming months, a cut of more than 15%. Democratic lawmakers have decried the proposal, insisting it will hurt benefits and services. Collins has disputed that claim, promising that front-line workers will not be impacted.
