Even the New England Journal of Medicine Thinks Preemption is a Bad Idea
Don't believe me when I say preemption is bad public policy? Well how about the New England Journal of Medicine?
Drug and device companies have chosen an inauspicious moment to attack the right of patients to seek redress. A series of pivotal reports on patient safety from the Institute of Medicine, as well as numerous articles in scholarly journals, has put the issue of patient safety in the national spotlight. Although frivolous lawsuits should not be condoned, product-liability litigation has unquestionably helped to remove unsafe products from the market and to prevent others from entering it. Through the process of legal discovery, litigation may also uncover information about drug toxicity that would otherwise not be known. Preemption will thus result in drugs and devices that are less safe and will thereby undermine a national effort to improve patient safety.
You just know that the "reform" movement is going to accuse the NEJM of acting out of self-interest in hoping to make pharmaceuticals the target of what would otherwise be malpractice lawsuits. The "reform" solution of course is to restrict both types of lawsuits, thus ensuring pharmaceuticals and insurers reap the maximum profit.