Senators weigh malpractice reforms aimed at stemming doctor departures and expanding patient lifetime support

Senate sponsors said Senate Bill 176 seeks to rebalance New Mexico’s medical-malpractice framework to keep physicians in the state and to ensure injured patients have enduring care resources.

Senator Hickey, a co-sponsor, said the measure is not anti-malpractice but seeks to rebalance incentives after changes enacted in 2021 coincided with higher claim rates and sharply higher insurer payouts. "In 2021, there were 3.2 cases per 100,000 people referred to the national database where a claim had been positively adjudicated. Since that time ... we are now at 7.2 cases," Hickey said in committee testimony, citing study data. Sponsors also cited an actuarial metric they described as out of range for New Mexico: the state is now paying roughly $1.83 in payouts for every dollar of premium income, the sponsors said.

The bill would limit plaintiffs’ contingency attorney fees on settlements and trials to percentages found in several other states, increase the portion of punitive-damage awards that would be directed to a patient-safety or patient-care fund, and create or strengthen a mechanism for ongoing, fund-managed care for seriously harmed patients rather than a single upfront lump-sum payout. Sponsors said those changes would leave more money directly for harmed patients, shore up a fund for ongoing care, and finance patient-safety investments intended to reduce future harm.

Physicians, medical groups and rural-recruitment organizations testified in favor, saying the state is losing providers and that long referral waits and closed panels are harming patients. Dr. Albert Kwan, a physician and sponsor witness, described difficulty finding primary care appointments and said physicians are leaving for other states. Multiple doctors described recruiting and insurance-cost challenges; several practitioners said premiums or the risk environment made continuing clinical practice untenable.

Opponents — including tribal representatives, medical-malpractice attorneys, patient advocates and people who said they were harmed by medical negligence — urged defeat. They said caps on attorney fees and shifting punitive awards to a state-managed fund would make it harder for injured people, especially elderly, rural and Native patients, to obtain counsel and secure appropriate long-term compensation. Testifying survivors and family members described lengthy cases, high experts’ costs and the need for contingency-fee representation to pursue claims against large hospital systems and insurers.

Several lawyers and advocates said a new reliance on insurer control or on a state fund to manage long-term care risked denials, delays and administrative disputes that would harm patients. "If Senate Bill 176 passes, families like mine will be trapped in a bureaucratic nightmare where they must beg insurers for every medical expense rather than having the financial stability to plan for long-term care," said Dominique DuPont.

Committee members heard extensive public comment in the room and on Zoom. Proponents urged the committee to pass the bill to stabilize care access; opponents urged the committee to preserve injured patients’ access to counsel and jury awards. Sponsors offered to continue to refine language and noted other bills under consideration to increase loan-repayment incentives for physicians.

No final committee vote to pass SB176 occurred during the hearing; senators indicated they would continue the discussion on a later date and asked sponsors to engage further with patient advocates and tribal representatives.