[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 88 (Monday, June 21, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7292-S7293]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MANAGED CARE PRACTICES
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we in the United States have become known
around the world for providing what can only be called the gold
standards of health care. People come to the United States from all
over the world to receive our high-quality health care. Yet I find that
too many of my constituents are not receiving this world-renowned
health care. Due to current practices in the managed care area, too
many HMOs are denying critically needed care to too many of their
beneficiaries.
For instance, in Detroit, I met with Donald Anderson, a quadriplegic
who is in a wheelchair. When he changed jobs, he also changed health
care providers. Donald told me that his new provider would not cover a
rolling commode wheelchair for him after the wheel broke on the one he
owned, even though his doctor classified the wheelchair as a medical
necessity. The HMO told him that the chair, which he uses to take
showers, is considered a luxury item. His physician intervened and
tried to get Donald a rolling commode but was repeatedly denied.
In Detroit, I also met with Amaka Onumono, who had been recovering
from injuries sustained when a man dumped hot grease on her and set
part of her home on fire. She spoke about gaps in service because she
needed to get a referral from her primary care physician after every 12
visits to her occupational therapist. ``Every time it comes time to
make an appointment, there is a hassle,'' her mother Denise Avery said.
In Lansing, I spoke with Dr. William Weil, a Michigan State
University pediatrician, who said that some families whose children
have chronic illnesses frequently have trouble getting HMOs to approve
pediatric subspecialists, especially if none is located in the
immediate community. ``In many HMOs, there is a tendency to use
neurologists and orthopedists who specialize only in the care of
adults,'' Dr. Weil told me.
[[Page S7293]]
In Midland, MI, I spoke with Dr. James Bicknell, head of the
emergency room at Mid Michigan Medical Center. He told me that problems
sometimes occur when managed care personnel, by telephone, tried to
screen people out of the emergency room. Dr. Bicknell said that
``managed care companies should be held accountable if patients are
harmed because companies deny care.''
Stories such as these necessitate reforming the managed care area,
which is why passage of a strong Patients' Bill of Rights is so
crucial. Let's take the previous examples and apply the Patients' Bill
of Rights--a strong one--to see what would have happened to these
people had that legislation been enacted.
Donald Anderson would have received a rolling commode, since his
doctor determined it was medically necessary. A strong Patients' Bill
of Rights allows the physician, not the insurance company, to decide
what prescriptions and equipment are medically necessary.
Amaka Onumono, the burn victim, would not have had to get a new
referral every time she needed to see a specialist under a strong
Patients' Bill of Rights. Our bill would allow the patient with a
chronic health problem to have a standing referral to see such a
specialist.
The patients of Dr. William Weil, the MSU pediatrician, would not
have been denied access to pediatric specialists. The strong Patients'
Bill of Rights specifically maintains that an individual should have
access to a specialist, including, in the case of a child, the
appropriate pediatric expertise.
In the case of Dr. James Bicknell, our Patients' Bill of Rights
mandates that all patients receive emergency treatment if a prudent
layperson considers the patient's condition to be ``an emergency
medical condition.'' So our health care programs, our strong Patients'
Bill of Rights, would hold health plans accountable for the decisions
they make.
I have heard similar stories all over my home State of Michigan.
While most HMOs do a good job of providing quality health care while
managing costs, too many put money before good medicine. A good,
strong, national Patients' Bill of Rights would establish a Federal
framework that would provide very high quality assurance for patients
all over the country.
There is overwhelming support in the public for managed care reform.
That would include, necessarily, the following patient protections:
First, ensure that treatment decisions are made by a patient's
doctor, not a bureaucrat at an insurance company.
Second, hold managed care plans accountable when their decisions to
withhold or limit care injure patients.
Third, ensure that patients undergoing treatment can continue to see
the same health care provider if their provider leaves the plan or
their employer changes plans.
Fourth, allow patients to see an outside specialist at no additional
cost whenever the specialist in their plan can't meet their needs.
Fifth, require that insurance companies pay for emergency services if
a reasonable person would consider the situation to be an emergency.
Sixth, promote access to clinical trials that may save time.
The idea of a strong Patients' Bill of Rights is not a radical
notion. Doctors, for instance, are strongly in favor of this. Doctors
who receive years of training and specialization are too often now
being told by managed care companies they cannot provide the care that
they deem to be appropriate. When doctors are no longer making the
decisions they were trained to make, something is wrong.
What is wrong is that too many HMOs are not providing the services
which the American public has a right to expect. The way to right this
is to adopt a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. I hope the Senate will
take this real-life issue up promptly, resolve it, and adopt a strong
Patients' Bill of Rights.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Kansas.
____________________