[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15148-15149]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        IN SUPPORT OF CLEAN PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS LEGISLATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, many of us know now that the Republican 
leadership postponed any debate or vote on the patients' bill of 
rights, the HMO reform even though it was scheduled for last week. Now, 
of course, we are hearing that it may come up this week perhaps as 
early as Thursday, later on this week.
  Mr. Speaker, I mention it because myself and many other Democrats 
have come to the floor frequently over the last year, and perhaps over 
the last 2 or 3 years, demanding that we have an opportunity for a 
clean vote on a real patients' bill of rights because we know of the 
problems that Americans and our constituents face with abuses when they 
are in the managed care system, where they have an HMO as their 
insurer.
  What I fear though, Mr. Speaker, from the pronouncements that we are 
hearing from the Republican leadership is that there will not be an 
opportunity for a vote on HMO reform unless they have the votes for a 
weaker version of HMO reform or they call it the patients' bill of 
rights than what the majority of the Members of this House have been 
seeking.
  The majority of the Members of the House, almost every Democrat and a 
significant number of Republicans, in the last session of Congress 
voted for a very strong patients' bill of rights, the one sponsored by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is a Democrat and also 
by some Republicans, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), and the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), who are Republicans.
  It is very important that the opportunities be presented here in the 
House if it is going to happen this week to have a clean vote on the 
real patients' bill of rights.
  I think it is crucial that my colleagues and the public understand 
that there is a difference between some of the different versions that 
have been sort of circulating around this Chamber, and to suggest that 
we are going to have a vote on the patients' bill of rights but not 
have the opportunity to deal with the really effective strong one, I 
think would be a major mistake.
  Let me give an example of the differences and why I think it is 
important that we have a vote on the real bill, on the one that is 
going to make a difference for the average American.
  President Bush has said over and over again that he does not support 
a real patients' bill of rights. He does not support the Dingell-
Ganske-Norwood bill because, first of all, there will be too much 
litigation, too much opportunity to go to court. Secondly, because it 
will drive up the cost of health insurance.
  We know from the Texas insurance, and there are ten other States that 
have the good bill of rights including my own in New Jersey, that the 
fear of lawsuits is not real and the fear about increased cost of 
health insurance or people having their health insurance dropped is not 
real. In the case of Texas, it is well documented since 1997 when the 
patients' bill of rights went into effect in that State there were only 
17 lawsuits. The average cost of health insurance in Texas has not gone 
up nearly as much as the national average. So we know that these fears 
that President Bush talks about are not legitimate.
  What the President has been supporting and what the Republican 
leadership has been supporting is a weakened version of the patients' 
bill of rights that has been introduced by the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Fletcher).
  Just to give an example of what the differences can be on these 
bills, let me

[[Page 15149]]

talk about some of the patients' protections that are guaranteed in the 
real patients' bill of rights that we would not have in the Fletcher 
Republican leadership bill. For example, we know that what we want is 
we want doctors to be able to practice medicine and be able to provide 
us with the care that they think we need. Well, under the Fletcher 
bill, for example, doctors could be told by their HMO that they cannot 
even talk to a patient about a medical procedure that they think a 
patient needs. It is called the gag rule.
  Doctors also would continue to be provided financial incentive, or 
could under their Fletcher bill by their HMO, financial incentives not 
to provide us with care because they get more money at the end of the 
month if they do not have as much procedure, if they do not care for as 
many people, if they do not do as many operations.
  Another very good example is with regard to specialty care. Under the 
real patients' bill of rights, the Dingell-Norwood-Ganske bill, we 
basically are able to go to a specialist on a regular basis without 
having to get authorization each time we want to go. Well, that is not 
true under the Fletcher bill. For example, under the real patients' 
bill of rights, a woman can have her OB-GYN as her family practitioner. 
She does not have to have authorization each time she goes.
  Under the real patients' bill of rights, if we need pediatric care, 
we are guaranteed specialty care for our children, for speciality 
pediatric care. Under the Fletcher bill neither of these things are 
true.
  So there are real differences here. That is why it is important that 
we have an opportunity this week to vote on the real patients' bill of 
rights. I ask the Republican leadership, do not put any roadblocks 
procedurally in the way through the Committee on Rules so that we do 
not have a clean vote on the real patients' bill of rights.
  Let me talk about another area. Well, I guess my time has run out, 
Mr. Speaker. But I would ask that we have an opportunity this week to 
vote on a clean bill.

                          ____________________