 |
 |
Bush says bar on 'frivolous lawsuits' essential in patients rights bill Feb. 7, 2001 | 5:38 p.m. By RON FOURNIER AP White House Correspondent WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush told Congress on Wednesday he would support popular new patients' rights, but only if HMOs and other health insurance companies are protected against ``unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits.'' The president stopped just short of promising to veto a bipartisan bill gathering steam in Congress, warning in three separate messages to Capitol Hill that he wants limits on damage awards. Bush also said he believes the lawsuits should go through federal courts, where no punitive damages are allowed. ``Americans want meaningful remedies, not a windfall for trial lawyers resulting in expensive health care premiums and unaffordable health coverage,'' Bush wrote in a document billed as his principles for a ` `Bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights.'' His message was received warmly by a key Democrat pushing the counter proposal. ``To protect patients' rights without encouraging excessive litigation, damages should be subject to reasonable caps,'' he said. Bush, who also wrote separate letters to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, has said big jury awards would drive up the cost of health care and force employers to drop or reduce coverage for workers. His remarks were the latest salvo in what is shaping up to be a politically charged fight over HMO reform -- an issue that voters put high on their list of concerns in most polls. On Tuesday, Bush's staff persuaded a key Republican, Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia, to drop his support of a patients' rights bill pushed by liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and conservative Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Bush's presidential primary rival. White House aides are working behind the scenes to slow the McCain-Kennedy measure both because Bush worries about runaway lawsuits and because aides feared he wouldn't get credit for improvements that move forward without his stamp. In his messages to the Hill, Bush said all lawsuits should be directed to federal court, meaning patients would be barred from state courts, where damage awards are typically much higher. The McCain-Kennedy bill would direct certain cases -- those that deal with interpreting an insurance contract -- to federal court. But their bill allows for a ``civil assessment'' of up to $5 million, which is essentially the same as punitive damages. Bush has not said what sort of punitive damages he would accept, though aides point to a law he approved in Texas that had a $750,000 cap. Kennedy said in a statement he was encouraged by Bush's messages, saying he was hopeful a bipartisan compromise could be reached ``on our remaining differences and provide all patients with the protections they deserve.'' Bush's call for reforms that cover all Americans marks a milestone in the debate over patients rights. For a long time, the debate between Democrats and Republicans was whether a federal patient protection law was needed at all -- with Democrats pushing the agenda. Then the debate was over whether to give patients the right to sue, and Republicans tended to balk. Now the question is whether the lawsuits should be in federal or state courts. Bush is siding with Democrats in what has been an ongoing debate over who the bill should cover. Senate Republicans have insisted that federal legislation only cover patients and health plans that are exempt from state regulations. But Democrats want the legislation to cover everyone, so all patients get the protections. As is his legislative style, Bush laid out a series of principles -- avoiding specifics that could make it difficult to compromise or declare victory down the road. Those principles included: --Ensuring that ``every person enrolled in a health plan enjoys strong patient protections.'' --Protecting patients rights to emergency room care, direct access to obstetricians, gynecologists and pediatricians, access to needed prescription drugs and approved clinical trials. --Letting patients appeal a health plan's decision on treatment to an independent, binding panel. Litigation would be possible if the panel rules against the patient, but it should be ``a last resort.'' ------ http://www.postnet.com/postnet/news/wires.nsf/National/5A434743A9A633D5862569EC0081CE85?OpenDocument ***************