Perry Cohen asked: <<what aspects of this bill are most important to PWP and how we might weigh in on this issue with our representatives during the August recess?>> I also haven't done a detailed study but it seems the patient bill of rights is more than a Parkinson's issue. It could affect anyone insured by a HMO. The bill pased by the House does contain the rights sought after by most patient groups. The main arrea of contention regards limits on patients' right to sue HMO's, which became more limited from the original bill by an amendment, and the way in which this change was negotiated between Bush and Rep. Norwood. It could result in a failure to pass any legislation once again. Here is a summary comparing the House and the Senate versions from USA Today . Following is a detailed analysis from kaisernetwork. I don't understand all the legal issues, but I think the following statement from Kaisernetwork Daily Health reports tells us something about who would benefit the most from the House bill: "Meanwhile, lobbyists for the insurance industry "praised" the legislation (Washington Post, 8/3). The Wall Street Journal reports that the insurance industry "wins more than it loses" under the bill (Bravin/Geyelin, Wall Street Journal, 8/3). American Association of Health Plans President Karen Ignagni said that the bill "moves away" from a potential flood of "reckless litigation" against HMOs (Welch, USA Today, 8/3). However, patient advocacy groups and the American Medical Association "were furious" over the legislation." (Washington Post, 8/3). "The AMA "waged an intense" lobbying campaign yesterday to defeat the measure. "It helps HMOs more than it helps patients," AMA Chair Timothy Flaherty said (Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/3). The New York Times reports that House and Senate negotiators will "come under intense pressure" from consumer groups, doctors, insurers and employers lobbying for or against provisions in the legislation. " FROM: USA TODAY August 3, 2001, Friday, FIRST EDITION SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 10A HEADLINE: Key patients' rights provisions "The Republican-controlled House approved a compromise on patients' rights brokered by President Bush on Thursday night that differs in key respects from a version passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate in June. Key provisions of both bills, and areas of dispute: (Story, 1A) General rights * Guaranteed access to emergency care. * Guaranteed access to specialists, including gynecologists and pediatricians. * Guaranteed access to clinical trials. Administrative reviews * Insurers are required to submit patients' grievances to independent review boards. * Patients denied care must exhaust outside appeals before going to court. Senate bill does not require exhaustion of appeals. Legal action * Federal court lawsuits are allowed for contractual disputes. * State court lawsuits are allowed for denials of medical care; federal rules apply. Senate bill does not mandate that federal rules apply. * Employers who provide their own health insurance cannot be sued in state courts. * Awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages in federal courts would be limited to $ 1.5 million. Senate bill has no limits for pain and suffering; $ 5 million limit on punitive damages. ---------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 14:06:35 -0400 Subject: Kaiser Daily Report This story was sent to you by lh from kaisernetwork.org Daily Reports. CAPITOL HILL WATCH House Passes Bush-Norwood Patients' Rights Compromise, Setting Up Conference 'Battle' with Senate "After a "long, tumultuous debate" on Aug. 2, the House voted 226-203 to approve a patients' rights bill (HR 2563) sponsored by Reps. Greg Ganske (R-Iowa), John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) that would offer Americans a host of protections against health plans, the New York Times reports (Pear, New York Times, 8/3). House members passed the legislation after adopting on a 218-213 "near party-line vote" an amendment to the bill that would limit patients' right to sue HMOs (Goldstein/Eilperin, Washington Post, 8/3). Under the amendment, part of an agreement reached Aug. 7 between Norwood and President Bush, patients could sue health plans in state court -- generally considered more hospitable to plaintiffs -- under a new set of federal rules that would cap non-economic damage awards at $1.5 million. Courts could also award patients up to $1.5 million in punitive damages, but only in cases where patients win complaints against health plans before an outside appeals panel and an HMO "still persists in refusing the care they need." In addition, patients could sue health plans after an outside review panel rejects their complaints, but lawsuits in those cases would "have a much higher burden of proof to overcome." The amendment would allow patients to sue large employers that administer their own health plans over health care disputes in federal court, not state courts (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 8/2). The amendment also would restrict class action lawsuits against health plans (Washington Post, 8/3). The House also approved an amendment that would expand medical savings accounts and ease restrictions on association health plans (New York Times, 8/3). "I think this is a good compromise. And I think it's something that will be good for patients and good for health care in America," House speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said (Warner, "NewsHour," PBS, 8/2). Bush added, "Today's action brings us an important step closer to ensuring that patients get the care they need and HMOs are held accountable" (Reinert/Masterson, Houston Chronicle, 8/3). Reaction However, most Democrats and some Republicans "complained bitterly" that the bill would "leave patients with inadequate leverage" against health plans and insurance companies (Washington Post, 8/3). They said that the legislation would overturn many state patients' rights laws that "provided greater protection" for patients and would "give HMOs an unfair advantage" in court by establishing a "legal presumption in favor" of health plans when they win administrative appeals but not offering patients the "same presumption if they prevailed." House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) said, "This bill is better for HMOs than for patients. It ought to be called the HMO bill of rights" (New York Times, 8/3). According to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), "What we've done now is degrade the opportunity to ensure that there's a remedy" for patients' right to sue HMOs "when those rights are infringed. ... This is a step backwards" (Lehrer, "NewsHour," PBS, 8/2). Democrats also "fumed at the betrayal" by Norwood, who reached an agreement on the bill with Bush without the support of his co-sponsors (Miller, Los Angeles Times, 8/3). "I'm sorry that Congressman Norwood sold out for a brief display at the Rose Garden," Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) said (Archibald, Washington Times, 8/3). Defending the deal, Norwood said, "Patients are no better off if we just keep passing bills," adding that lawmakers "are deluding themselves if they think they can shove this bill down the president's throat" (Bowman, Scripps-McClatchy Western Service/Memphis Commercial Appeal, 8/2). Speaking about Bush, Norwood said, "He's good, he's a pleasure. I don't make any secret of it, I love the man" (Zuckman, Chicago Tribune, 8/3). Political Ramifications Yesterday's vote represented a "dramatic victory" for Bush and Republican leaders, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports (Koszczuk, Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/3). The president "wanted to avoid vetoing a patients' rights bill, which is popular among voters" (Milligan, Boston Globe, 8/3). Bush had threatened to veto Ganske-Dingell-Norwood before reaching an agreement with Norwood, maintaining that the bill would drive up health care costs by funneling lawsuits against HMOs into state courts, which often award higher damages than federal courts (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 8/2). Democrats "charged" that the agreement between Norwood and Bush represented a "cynical attempt to continue the HMO reform deadlock and to avoid the need for Bush to veto a popular bill" (Epstein, San Francisco Chronicle, 8/3). However, Republicans said that, by opposing a bill that Bush supports, Democrats "are trying to keep alive a political issue they can use against the GOP" in the 2002 elections (Hosler, Baltimore Sun, 8/3). "There are some folks who would just as soon have the politics and not the policy, and I think those are the ones who are crying the loudest right now," Hastert said (Snow, CNN, 8/2). The Los Angeles Times reports that Republicans "had been outmaneuvered" by Democrats on patients' rights before yesterday's vote, a "particularly deflating" defeat for congressional Democrats (Los Angeles Times, 8/3). Congressional Democrats had planned to spend the August recess "blasting" Bush as "insensitive to HMO horrors" (Orin, New York Post, 8/3). More Reaction Meanwhile, lobbyists for the insurance industry "praised" the legislation (Washington Post, 8/3). The Wall Street Journal reports that the insurance industry "wins more than it loses" under the bill (Bravin/Geyelin, Wall Street Journal, 8/3). American Association of Health Plans President Karen Ignagni said that the bill "moves away" from a potential flood of "reckless litigation" against HMOs (Welch, USA Today, 8/3). However, patient advocacy groups and the American Medical Association "were furious" over the legislation (Washington Post, 8/3). The AMA "waged an intense" lobbying campaign yesterday to defeat the measure. "It helps HMOs more than it helps patients," AMA Chair Timothy Flaherty said (Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/3). The New York Times reports that House and Senate negotiators will "come under intense pressure" from consumer groups, doctors, insurers and employers lobbying for or against provisions in the legislation. The Senate passed patients' rights legislation (S 1052) sponsored by Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John Edwards (D-N.C.), similar to Ganske-Dingell-Norwood before yesterday's amendments, in June (New York Times, 8/3). Senate Negotiations The House vote yesterday "set up a fierce contest with the Democratic-controlled Senate," as negotiators will have to address differences between the House and Senate patients' rights bills in conference (Washington Post, 8/3). According to some analysts, lawmakers may "harden positions" after yesterday's vote, making it "appear unlikely that reforms will come this year" (Scripps-McClatchy Western Service/Memphis Commercial Appeal, 8/3). "We are not going to give up and we're not going to give in," Kennedy said (Boston Globe, 8/3). Democrats "insisted" that the Senate would "never accept" the House bill, although they did not "rule out the possibility" of a compromise (Washington Post, 8/3). In addition, Democrats said that they "can hold out for concessions" from Republicans, although GOP lawmakers could "portray them as obstructing progress" on the issue (New York Times, 8/3). Senate Democrats also may attach their version of the bill to a separate measure and send the legislation back to the House, "defying members to vote it down" (Boston Globe, 8/3). Meanwhile, Hastert said that Bush will "remain engaged throughout the process" and urged Senate Democrats not to "torpedo this thing." Democrats worry, however, that Republicans hope to "bury the bill in endless negotiations" (Espo, AP/Bergen Record, 8/3)." View Entire Floor Debate and Vote A HealthCast of the entire House debate and vote on the patients' rights bill -- as well as information such as an analysis from Congressional Quarterly's Samuel Goldreich and a chronicle of patients' rights developments to date -- is available at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/healthcast/house/patientsrights/aug01. The Senate's June debate on patients' rights legislation is also available at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/healthcast/senate/pbr/jun01. --------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn