As the general election draws near, many incumbent politicians seem busy trying to generate publicity and a attract voter attention.

Sometimes their actions are not much more than campaign fluff, but sometimes the issue is genuine.

And that is the case with a recent press release from U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart. The e-mail from Hart's office described a roundtable discussion in Pittsburgh that the Republican congresswoman would be participating in that would focus on the crisis of attracting and retaining doctors in Pennsylvania.

Whether or not Hart's involvement in last week's roundtable discussion about the problems of attracting new doctors to Pennsylvania had anything to do with re-election efforts, the problem deserves wider discussion.

There have been many stories about doctors in Pennsylvania retiring early or moving to another state where medical malpractice insurance is cheaper. For the past several years, there has been plenty of anecdotal evidence of a medical malpractice crisis in Pennsylvania.

But most of what the public has heard is an ongoing public relations battle between doctors and lawyers, with each side blaming the other for the problems. In some cases, lawyer groups have even denied there is a problem.

But, the following facts included in Hart's press release suggest that there is a problem.

A decade ago, about 50 percent of all medical residents in Pennsylvania remained in the state to practice. Today, that figure has dropped to about 8 percent.

A decade ago, about 12 percent of the doctors practicing in the state were 35 years old or younger. Today, those younger doctors make up just 3.4 percent of the total in the state.

Another troubling statistic mentioned in Hart's press release was the sharp rise in physician liability payments. From 1991 to 2004, those liability payments shot up to $450 million from $180 million. Lawyers groups note that since 2004 these liability payouts have stabilized or declined.

In the past few years, Gov. Ed Rendell provided some relief for doctors by having the state subsidize some of their malpractice insurance premiums. But that band-aid fix has not solved the problem.

A dozen or more other states have followed the path set by California some 30 years ago by capping so-called "pain and suffering"awards.

While participating in the discussion, Hart noted that Congress is working on a solution at the federal level. One interesting component of that solution would limit by a sliding percentage the amount of any settlement going to the lawyer.

Hart noted that a federal solution also would dampen the exodus of doctors from states like Pennsylvania, that have not addressed the crisis, to states that have.

Doctor and lawyer groups continue their public relations battle over who is to blame for the medical malpractice crisis in Pennsylvania. Public discussion, like the program Hart participated in, will help inform people about the roots of the crisis.

If the cost of practicing medicine in Pennsylvania continues to be substantially higher than it is in other states, it will remain difficult to attract and retain doctors in this state. And that poses a serious health care crisis for everyone.

More could be done in Harrisburg, but a federal solution might be a better alternative.

Hart's roundtable was a welcome reminder of the current state of the medical malpractice crisis in Pennsylvania.