[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     PATIENT PROTECTION ACT OF 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. JOHN LINDER

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 24, 1998

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, today the American people are feeling the 
pressure of rising health care costs paired with dwindling health care 
choices. They have called on us to do something that will make their 
lives better, to put health care decisions back in their hands.
  Given that mandate, we have two choices. We can choose to task the 
government and lawyers with improving our health options. Or, we can 
choose to task the marketplace with offering us more health choices. My 
constituents have tasked me to do the latter.
  For those who believe in the benevolence of lawyers, for those who 
believe in the wisdom of bureaucrats, the Dingell substitute is 
available to you today.
  But for those who believe that the individual makes better choices 
about his family's health care than a government official does, you 
will share my excitement about the Patient Protection Act introduced by 
Speaker Gingrich and Mr. Hastert.
  The Patient Protection Act protects the patient in three key ways. 
First, this legislation protects the patient's choice of doctors. For 
those patients in HMO's, the bill provides that they have a point-of-
service option--so that patients can visit doctors outside of their HMO 
network. For those patients not in HMO's, the bill expands their access 
to Medical Savings Accounts--accounts that offer complete freedom of 
doctor and treatment. For all patients, the bill--for the first time--
allows a woman to choose an OB/GYN as her primary care physician and 
allows a parent to choose a pediatrician as his child's primary care 
physician. These new choices assure patients that they will be able to 
choose the best doctor for their health care needs.
  Second, the Patient Protection Act protects the individual's access 
to the care to which he is entitled. The bill moves the decision about 
access to care away from the insurance company and back to the patient 
and the doctor. For example, when a patient reasonably believes he or 
she is having a medical emergency, he or she should be able to seek 
care at a local emergency room and that care should be paid for by his 
or her insurance plan. Under the Patient Protection Act, the patient 
now has that freedom without being second-guessed by the insurance 
company. The Act also prohibits ``gag rules''--insurance company 
restrictions on what information a doctor can give a patient. With the 
prohibition, we restore the complete disclosure--the complete freedom 
of communication--that is so essential to the doctor patient 
relationship.
  Finally, the Patient Protection Act protects the individual from 
arbitrary decisions from the insurance company to deny care. We are all 
aware of the too familiar pattern of a patient calling his or her 
insurance company to request care and having the untrained, non-medical 
reviewer deny the care without even reviewing the patient's medical 
history. The Patient Protection Act ends that practice forever. Under 
this bill, if the patient and her doctor believe that a certain medical 
procedure is indicated--but the insurance company declines to cover the 
expense--the patient has the right to an immediate appeal to a panel of 
doctors--not bureaucrats--who will decide whether the medical care is 
necessary. This new right of appeal will ensure that only medical 
professionals will make decisions about a patient's need for health 
care.
  We have heard so much in this debate about the patient's right to 
sue. I'm so tired of that red herring. Patients sue their doctors and 
sue their insurance companies every day. While I abhor the litigious 
nature of our society today, I certainly support the patient's right to 
be made whole when malpractice of breach of contract or any other 
misconduct occurs.
  In all my years, however, I've never met a patient who really 
believes that the legal process makes them whole. When you lose some of 
your hearing, or part of your sight, or any of your abilities, money is 
no substitute. Unfortunately, after the harm has occurred, money is all 
that society has left to offer. After the harm has occurred, it's too 
late to be made whole.
  This is why the Patient Protection Act focuses on preventing the harm 
from occurring. Why spend two years to win a lawsuit for your injury 
when you can spend 1 hour on an appeal to your doctor that will prevent 
the injury all together. Our bill is about patients and doctors and 
healing. We provide access to the doctors, assure choice for patient, 
and believe that gives us the best chance at healing.
  My constituents and I thank all of my colleagues for the many months 
of hard work that went into this bill. With the very first patient that 
is healed by a doctor rather than frustrated by an insurance company, 
we can all be certain that we have succeeded in our efforts.

                          ____________________