HARRISBURG -- Pennsylvania lawmakers are headed along different paths in efforts to rein in the rising costs of medical malpractice insurance for doctors and hospitals.

As lawmakers prepared to leave here for a three-week recess, both senators and House members can claim to have passed malpractice reform bills in accordance with a call to action from Gov. Mark Schweiker. The governor has warned that hikes in premiums and surcharges are causing doctors to consider leaving the state or scaling back their practices, thus creating potential gaps in the delivery of medical services.

But the problem -- as so often happens with complex, interest-laden issues -- is that both chambers need to agree on one bill version in order for a law to get on the books.

The House-passed bill is more in line with what doctors want; the Senate-passed bill is harshly criticized by the Pennsylvania Medical Society, the doctors' lobby.

The House and Senate are far apart on the issue of changing rules for civil lawsuits, for example. House Republican leaders attempted unsuccessfully Wednesday to amend the malpractice bill to make a major change in rules governing civil liability lawsuits across the entire spectrum from medical malpractice to product liability and environmental impact cases.

The GOP proposal provided for defendants' financial responsibility in liability awards above $1 million for "pain and suffering" losses to be apportioned to their share of fault. This change sought to limit the search for "deep pockets" by plaintiffs and has been sought by manufacturers and hospitals among others.

But House Majority Leader John Perzel, R-Philadelphia, dropped the effort to pass this broad-based change after it ran into trouble Wednesday night on the floor.

The House bill still provides for apportioned liability in medical malpractice awards, but the Senate bill keeps the current legal standard -- known as joint and several liability -- which allows for financial damages to be levied against a liable party regardless of the share of fault.

Reconciling these differences awaits lawmakers when they return to the Capitol on March 12 following hearings on the state budget. They must satisfy the public interest in having a functioning health care system, yet also wade through the thicket of competing demands from the influential and campaign-contributing constituencies with a stake in that system -- the doctors, hospitals, trial lawyers, insurance companies and the business community.

Both bills establish more state oversight of errant doctors and give the state a role in finding strategies to reduce the medical errors in treatment or on the operating table that lead to malpractice lawsuits.

The House bill limits trials to the county where the alleged malpractice occurred, thus ending a practice where trial lawyers sometimes shop around for favorable juries. The Senate bill establishes a commission to make recommendations on this topic by Sept. 1. The commission would be chaired by the chief justice of the state Supreme Court. This is designed to head off objections from the court that its turf is being infringed upon.