[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 97 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H5863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DISCHARGE PETITION ON PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, today I am initiating a discharge petition 
to force the House to debate House Resolution 486, a rule for 
consideration of managed care reform bills.
  House Resolution 486 provides for the consideration of the Dingell-
Ganske Patients' Bill of Rights, and would allow both the manager's 
substitute amendment and a substitute by one of the leading Republican 
advocates of managed care reform, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Charlie Norwood).
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) could offer the bill 
developed by the Hastert task force or some other reform plan. Finally, 
the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this week the House may debate House Resolution 4250, 
the patient protection bill developed by the Hastert task force. This 
bill just became available for review a few days ago. It has serious 
problems. It is not the best bill.
  I have many concerns which I will not outline today, but let me give 
just one example. A year or so ago when we passed patient protection 
legislation as part of the Medicare reform bill, we banned what are 
called gag rules. These are rules that HMOs set up that prevent doctors 
or nurses or other health professionals from telling the patients all 
of the information or treatment options they need.
  In our Medicare bill, we said that HMOs could not prohibit or 
restrict communications. Those last two words are important, ``or 
restrict.'' They are in the bill that I support, the Patients' Bill of 
Rights. However, in the Hastert bill, the word ``restrict'' was taken 
out.
  What that means, then, is that an HMO could erect a thousand hurdles 
that your doctor or nurse would have to jump over to try to tell their 
patients all of their treatment options. That would be okay, as long as 
the HMO did not prohibit those types of communications. That is a 
serious, serious loophole in the legislation, and it is one of the many 
reasons why I think it is not the best legislation.
  I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is my intention to testify before 
the Committee on Rules and to ask that they permit the Dingell-Ganske 
Patients' Bill of Rights to be offered as an amendment, not merely as a 
motion to recommit or as a part of some other procedural move. If the 
Committee on Rules makes such an amendment in order, I can always take 
my name off this discharge competition.
  Mr. Speaker, there are only 33 legislative days left this year. The 
clock is ticking on our patients. There are many other Republican 
Members who are concerned that the debate on patient protection 
legislation be timely and fair.
  If the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I are not permitted 
to offer the Patients' Bill of Rights as an amendment, then I will seek 
to collect Republican signatures on this petition to bring the best HMO 
reform bill before the House for a fair vote.

                          ____________________