[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 94 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H5585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE TO RELEASE LANGUAGE ON MANAGED CARE REFORM BILL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this week the Republican health care task
force here in the House is supposed to release the language for its so-
called managed care reform bill. And we know from what the task force
has already released publicly that this bill will be a farce, a
cosmetic fix that lacks some of the most important patient protections.
Despite an avalanche of real-life examples of people who have died
because their HMOs refuse to approve needed care, the Republican
leadership has kowtowed to the insurance industry. The Republican plan
will not allow patients to sue their HMOs when they are denied needed
care.
This weekend Senate majority leader Trent Lott announced that
Republicans in the Senate are following suit. The Senate Republican
bill will also deny patients the right to sue their HMOs. Unlike the
Republicans' proposals, the Democrats' patient bill of rights would
give patients the right to sue their HMOs.
Although this provision is included in the Patient's Bill of Rights,
support for giving patients a legal mechanism to hold HMOs accountable
is hardly limited to Democrats in Congress. Federal judges around the
country are increasingly frustrated by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, or ERISA law, which is the source of the problem. ERISA
shields HMOs and insurance companies from being sued by patients.
I would like to give some examples, Mr. Speaker. Take the case, for
example, of a Louisiana woman named Florence B. Corcoran. Miss Corcoran
brought suit against her HMO after her fetus died following the HMO's
refusal to hospitalize her for a high-risk pregnancy. After the suit
was thrown out, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit in New
Orleans said the Corcorans have no remedy for what may have been a
serious mistake.
{time} 2300
The court observed that the death of Mrs. Corcoran's unborn child
would seem to warrant a reevaluation of ERISA so that it can continue
to serve its noble purpose of safeguarding the interests of employees.
There are other courts around the country, other Federal courts, that
have also been critical of ERISA and the fact that patients cannot
bring suit against their HMOs.
In Boston, Judge William C. Young of the Federal court expressed his
deep concern by the failure of Congress to amend the statute that due
do the changing realities of the modern health care system has gone
conspicuously awry. ``It is deeply troubling,'' Judge Young said,
``that in the health insurance context ERISA has evolved into a shield
of immunity which thwarts the legitimate claims of the very people it
was designed to protect.''
I could give other examples. I will give one more, Mr. Speaker. In
San Francisco, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled
just last month than an insurance company that denied Ms. Rhonda Bast
from Seattle treatment for breast cancer. She had died from the
disease. ``This case presents a tragic set of facts,'' said Judge David
R. Thompson. ``Without action by Congress,'' he added, ``there is
nothing we can do to help the Basts and others who may find themselves
in the same unfortunate situation.''
I think that these examples clearly demonstrate the severity of the
problem. From coast to coast, Federal courts are forced to tell
patients and families of patients who have died that they would like to
help but cannot. The law does not allow for it. The law does not allow
for a patient to bring suit effectively for damages against an HMO.
And this, I would remind my colleagues, is what the Republicans now
are ardently defending. No matter what the cost, the Republican
leadership will not break its alliance with the insurance industry and
allow for adequate enforcement of patient protections.
Giving patients the right to sue HMOs is an absolutely vital
component of managed care reform. The right to sue is the enforcement
mechanism through which all the patient protections we are advocating
are to be protected. President Clinton summed it up best when he said
the other day that ``a right without a remedy is not a right.''
The public's support, Mr. Speaker, for true managed care reform I
think has translated into an enormous amount of support for the
Patients' Bill of Rights, the Democratic proposal, which offers the
most comprehensive set of protections of any managed care reform bill
in Congress today.
Currently, the Patients' Bill of Rights has the support of over 175
patients, physicians, consumer medical and public health groups. It has
190 cosponsors in the House, including some Republicans.
Despite this groundswell of grassroots support, the Republican
leadership is still throwing up roadblocks to progress. Their are
reports today that the Republican leadership may bring its sham
proposal directly to the floor for a vote as early as next week.
This week, supporters of the Patients' Bill of Rights will be working
hard to gather support for the bipartisan Dingell-Ganske discharge
petition, which was introduced before Congress adjourned for the July 4
recess. This discharge petition would force the Republican leadership
to allow the Patients' Bill of Rights to come to the floor for a vote.
The discharge petition will play a crucial role in ensuring Members of
this body are given the opportunity to vote on the Patients' Bill of
Rights if the Republicans bring their sham proposal to the floor next
week.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it is time that we all took stock of the fact
that if we are going to pass patient protections, and we certainly
should, that it should be patient protections that is real managed care
reform.
____________________