Bipartisanship on Patients' Rights
February 9, 2001
George W. Bush pledged on the
campaign trail to bring Democrats and
Republicans together on behalf of a patients'
bill of rights. But his failure now to back the
sensible bipartisan bill being sponsored by
John McCain, John Edwards and others in
Congress calls into question the sincerity of his pledge. The legislation,
which sponsors say is supported by solid majorities in both chambers, would make it easier for Americans to resolve disputes with their health
maintenance organizations and other insurance providers and to seek
redress when they have been wrongly denied needed treatment. The
House passed a similar bill in the last session, but the effort died in the
Senate, strongly opposed by the insurance industry.
The bill, called the Patient Protection Act, covers the 160 million
Americans who have private health insurance and establishes guidelines
for H.M.O.'s and other insurance providers to process requests for
coverage. It would grant the insured a right to receive emergency care,
visit pediatricians, ob-gyns and other specialists and obtain an outside
review by medical experts of any benefit denials.
Patients dissatisfied with the outcome of this review could sue their health
insurance providers in state court in cases that entail a "medically
reviewable" claim. These suits would be subject to any applicable
damage caps under state law. Contractual claims against an H.M.O.
would have to be brought in federal court and face a $5 million cap. This
is a sensible jurisdictional division, reflecting the fact that states have
traditionally entertained medical malpractice suits.
The Bush administration supports the right to sue in theory, but would
like to steer all lawsuits under a patients' bill of rights, whether medical or
contractual, to the more defendant-friendly federal courts and impose a
lower damages claim. This is an unworkable position that would
unnecessarily federalize a whole new area of the law.
The White House seemed surprised and a bit riled that Senator McCain
would upset the carefully orchestrated theme-of-the-week presidential
agenda by jumping ahead to patients' rights during tax- cut week. In fact,
that bill is not much different from the Texas law that Mr. Bush lauded on
the campaign trail, albeit with a higher cap on punitive damages.
On Monday, in another sign that its actions have been less bipartisan than
its rhetoric, the administration persuaded Representative Charlie
Norwood, a Georgia Republican and the prime sponsor of the bill that
passed the House last session, not to sponsor this legislation in the
House. Though the congressman remains a supporter of the McCain-
Edwards bill, he says he now believes the president ought to be afforded
an opportunity to develop his own proposal. But if Mr. Bush is to be a
successful president, he must learn to support Congress when it moves in
a bipartisan fashion to address a pressing national need, as it seeks to do
with this patients' bill of rights.
From: The New York Times
nytimes.com |
