1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Suite 9
Tucson, AZ 85716-3450
Phone: (800) 635-1196
Hotline: (800) 419-4777
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.
A Voice for Private Physicians Since 1943
Omnia pro aegroto

Norwood, Dingell, Ganske to Introduce New House Patients' Rights Bill That Includes Changes from Senate-Passed Version

[Jul 19, 2001] House supporters of the Senate-passed patients' rights bill (S 1052) will "shelve" the House version (HR 526) of the bill, which they proposed in February, and introduce new legislation today that includes amendments adopted in the Senate last month, the Washington Times reports. Reps. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.), John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Greg Ganske (R-Iowa) say they hope that the move will prevent House Republican leaders, who oppose the bill, from defeating it by forcing individual votes on every amendment that the Senate added to the bill (Archibald, Washington Times, 7/19). The new bill, like HR 526, would allow patients to sue HMOs in state court for denial of benefits or quality of care issues and in federal court for non-quality of care issues. The legislation would cap damages awarded in federal court at $5 million, but state courts could award as much in damages as the state allows. To reflect amendments made to the Senate bill, the new House bill would require patients to exhaust an independent appeals process before suing HMOs and would allow employers to be shielded from liability by naming an outside designated decision maker to make medical decisions that affect employees.

Norwood-Dingell-Ganske Losing House Support?

Rep. Ernie Fletcher (R-Ky.), sponsor of a rival bill (HR 2315), said that Norwood, Dingell and Ganske are introducing the new bill in order to "stem the loss of House support" that occurred after President Bush threatened to veto the Senate bill (Washington Times, 7/19). Under Fletcher's bill, which Bush has endorsed, patients could sue health plans in federal court for quality of care issues and non-quality of care issues, but could only sue in state court in cases where health plans refused to abide by decisions made by outside appeals panels. The bill would cap non-economic damages in federal court at $500,000, but state courts could award as much money in damages as the state allows. The bill would prohibit punitive damages (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 7/9). "I think they're trying to make the bill look more like ours in a lot of ways, because they realize we're getting a lot more support now," Fletcher said. House leaders have not decided which bill to bring to the floor for debate, which will "probably" begin next week. However, supporters of the Senate bill said that if House leaders bring the Fletcher bill or HR 526 to the floor, they would offer the new legislation as a substitute (Washington Times, 7/19).