- The Washington Times - Thursday, May 24, 2001

As good a compromise as it might be, the patients bill of rights just endorsed by President Bush isnt likely to become law unless Mr. Bush undertakes a concerted campaign to pass it.
The measure introduced last week by Sens. Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, John Breaux, Louisiana Democrat, and Jim Jeffords, Vermont Republican, is opposed for opposite reasons by most Senate Republicans and Democrats.
To Republicans, it is too permissive in allowing patients to sue HMOs. To Democrats, its too restrictive and sets too low a cap on the liability awards patients can win in court.
At present, it appears that Democrats, with some Republican support, could win majorities in both Houses with their version of a patients rights bill.
However, it will take 60 votes to pass any measure in the Senate, and, at the moment, the Frist-Breaux-Jeffords measure has the least support of three competing approaches.
What it does have going for it is that its a middle-ground solution that sets up an independent review system when HMOs refuse to cover a patient and allows patients to sue their HMOs in federal court, but caps damage awards.
The bill is designed to discourage frivolous litigation, thereby keeping health insurance premiums under control and keeping the ranks of the uninsured from swelling further.
The Congressional Budget Office calculates that the Democratic proposal, sponsored by Sens. Edward Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, John Edwards, North Carolina Democrat, and John McCain, Arizona Republican, would increase insurance premiums by 4.2 percent.
The Lewin Group, an independent research firm, estimates that each percentage point rise increases the number of uninsured Americans by 300,000; thus, Kennedy-McCain could cause some 1.26 million people to lose their health insurance.
Kennedy-McCain and its House counterpart, sponsored by Reps. John Dingell, Michigan Democrat., and Greg Ganske, Iowa Republican, allow patients to sue their HMOs in state court when denied a procedure, test or referral.
The bill sets no cap on awards for economic losses missed work, for instance or "noneconomic" damages, such as "pain and suffering." It puts a $5 million cap on punitive damages. In the past, Democrats have opposed any caps, but they yielded to attract Mr. McCains endorsement.
After the Kennedy-McCain bill was introduced, Mr. Bush made it clear he would veto the measure on the grounds it would encourage litigation and drive up insurance costs. He laid down principles that the Frist-Breaux bill matches, and last week he said he favored the bill.
However, it was roundly denounced and attracted no co-sponsors. Nor, as yet, is there a House counterpart, although House GOP leaders presumably would be inclined to favor a measure backed by the president.
To get Frist-Breaux enacted into law, Mr. Bush presumably would have to unite House Republicans around it, then persuade conservatives in the Senate to back it.
Led by Sen. Don Nickles, Oklahoma Republican, however, a phalanx of Senate Republicans is currently likely to oppose it on the grounds that Frist-Breaux supercedes state laws.
In 1999 and 2000 the Senate passed two Nickles-sponsored measures, both of which offered federal protection to a minority of patients. One bill limited economic damages to $350,000.
Mr. Nickles hasnt introduced a bill this year, but he criticized Frist-Breaux as "a serious expansion of federal power into an area thats been a prerogative of the states" and charged that Mr. Frist had "moved significantly to the left" of fellow Senate Republicans.
Frist-Breaux has a cap of $500,000 on non-economic damages, puts no limit on economic awards and bars punitive damages.
Still, it was also denounced by the HMO industry for allowing independent review boards to order procedures not covered under insurance contracts, based on the boards determination of "medical necessity."
On the other side of the issue, Mr. Kennedy and Rep. Charlie Norwood, Georgia Republican, assailed the Frist-Breaux measure as a step backward from existing federal court decisions allowing for suits in state courts.
Mr. Norwood was a key co-sponsor of the Dingell bill in the last Congress and has said he would vote for it if it came to the floor, but this year he is not a co-sponsor. He says he is trying to persuade Mr. Bush to modify his stance.
On May 10, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Dingell and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, met with top White House policy adviser Josh Bolten, but no apparent progress was made.
Thats not surprising, since Mr. Bush is a tort reformer who opposes expanding the power of trial lawyers to, as he sees it, harass industries for profit. Mr. Norwood wants HMOs to suffer if their decisions cause harm to patients.
The likeliest outcome is a stalemate, with no bill able to win the necessary 60 votes in the Senate. This would surely be used as a 2002 campaign issue by Democrats, but at least Mr. Bush would be able to say Republicans tried to pass something — a compromise, at that.

Morton Kondracke is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide