California has long had a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. But under state law, elder abuse cases are exempt from the limit. Ms. Valentine said she had obtained verdicts and settlements exceeding $250,000 for relatives of many patients who had died because of infected bedsores, medication mix-ups, malnutrition, dehydration or a failure to provide care.

The bill would not limit a patient’s ability to recover economic damages, for medical expenses or lost earnings. If more than one defendant was responsible for an injury, the jury would award damages against each one in proportion to the share of responsibility.

The bill says that a doctor who prescribes a drug or medical device “approved, licensed or cleared by the Food and Drug Administration” may not be named in a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer or seller of the product. The bill provides similar protection for pharmacists who fill prescriptions. The bill would restrict contingency fees that lawyers can charge for representing plaintiffs in health care lawsuits.

The measure would limit claims related to coverage provided “via a federal program, subsidy or tax benefit.” Brian K. Atchinson, the president of the Physician Insurers Association of America, a trade group for insurers, said this meant that the House bill would apply to health insurance provided by employers, because the federal government provides a tax break for such coverage. The tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits is one of the largest tax breaks in the tax code, costing the government more than $150 billion a year in lost revenue, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The costs of the medical malpractice system have been hotly debated for years. Reliable, comprehensive data is not available. Several studies suggest that the costs, including damage awards, legal fees and the effects of defensive medicine, may represent 2 percent to 2.5 percent of national health spending.

The House bill is supported by the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and the American Health Care Association, a trade group for nursing homes. But manufacturers of medical devices have mixed feelings about it.

“We support the overall intent of the bill, to reduce litigation burdens on the health care system,” said Greg Crist, a spokesman for the Advanced Medical Technology Association, which represents device makers. “But some of our members are concerned that the bill could actually have the opposite effect and could increase burdens on manufacturers by insulating doctors and other health care providers from any liability related to devices.”