Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 124.djvu/1036

124 STAT. 1010 PUBLIC LAW 111–148—MAR. 23, 2010 ‘‘(D) enhances patient safety by detecting, analyzing, and helping to reduce medical errors and adverse events; ‘‘(E) improves access to liability insurance; ‘‘(F) fully informs patients about the differences in the alternative and current tort litigation; ‘‘(G) provides patients the ability to opt out of or volun- tarily withdraw from participating in the alternative at any time and to pursue other options, including litigation, outside the alternative; ‘‘(H) would not conflict with State law at the time of the application in a way that would prohibit the adoption of an alternative to current tort litigation; and ‘‘(I) would not limit or curtail a patient’s existing legal rights, ability to file a claim in or access a State’s legal system, or otherwise abrogate a patient’s ability to file a medical malpractice claim. ‘‘(3) SOURCES OF COMPENSATION.—Each State desiring a grant under subsection (a) shall identify the sources from and methods by which compensation would be paid for claims resolved under the proposed alternative to current tort litiga- tion, which may include public or private funding sources, or a combination of such sources. Funding methods shall to the extent practicable provide financial incentives for activities that improve patient safety. ‘‘(4) SCOPE.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Each State desiring a grant under subsection (a) shall establish a scope of jurisdiction (such as Statewide, designated geographic region, a designated area of health care practice, or a designated group of health care providers or health care organizations) for the pro- posed alternative to current tort litigation that is sufficient to evaluate the effects of the alternative. No scope of juris- diction shall be established under this paragraph that is based on a health care payer or patient population. ‘‘(B) NOTIFICATION OF PATIENTS.—A State shall dem- onstrate how patients would be notified that they are receiving health care services that fall within such scope, and the process by which they may opt out of or voluntarily withdraw from participating in the alternative. The deci- sion of the patient whether to participate or continue participating in the alternative process shall be made at any time and shall not be limited in any way. ‘‘(5) PREFERENCE IN AWARDING DEMONSTRATION GRANTS.— In awarding grants under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give preference to States— ‘‘(A) that have developed the proposed alternative through substantive consultation with relevant stake- holders, including patient advocates, health care providers and health care organizations, attorneys with expertise in representing patients and health care providers, medical malpractice insurers, and patient safety experts; ‘‘(B) that make proposals that are likely to enhance patient safety by detecting, analyzing, and helping to reduce medical errors and adverse events; and ‘‘(C) that make proposals that are likely to improve access to liability insurance. ‘‘(d) APPLICATION.—