[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 16454-16455]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   BIPARTISAN PATIENT PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOSEPH CROWLEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2001

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2563) to 
     amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974, and

[[Page 16455]]

     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in 
     managed care plans and other health coverage:

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my sadness over 
the bill before us today. Let me begin by saying that I am a 
cosponsor--once proud--of H.R. 2563, the Ganske-Dingell-Norwood 
Patient's Bill of Rights. When I signed onto this bill, this was a 
truly Bipartisan Patient Protection Act.
  But there have been some changes. And the kicker? The kicker is that 
I, a cosponsor of this bill, was not told what those changes were. None 
of us were, not until the eleventh hour. I do know that this bill has 
been gutted. What I know, is that there have been back room deals and 
secret negotiations. As a result, what was once a good bill is now one 
I am extremely disappointed with. The process by which new provisions 
have been developed has been a deceptive one. We started with a very 
bipartisan process to develop workable language, but unfortunately, 
that process was hijacked. Instead, deals were made behind closed 
doors. Even when improvements were suggested that would improve the 
language, they were ignored. This process was a disgrace to the House 
and the American people, who would benefit far more from a bipartisan 
and open process.
  The Patient's Bill of Rights I put my name on, is now the Providers 
Bill of Rights. The patient's Bill of Rights that we had yesterday 
would have ensured that patients come first--not HMO profits or health 
plan bureaucrats. The Providers Bill of Rights we have before us today, 
fought for by the other party, strips these provisions and makes sure a 
calculator, not caring physicians and concerned families retain control 
over medical decisions.
  Our bill allowed doctors to make the decisions about what is 
medically necessary and not an HMO bean counter. It gave patients 
access to information about all available treatments and not just the 
cheapest. Can someone from the other side please explain why that's so 
bad? Will they please come to my district and explain it to the working 
families in my hometown why this is not a good idea? And while you're 
at it, could you explain it to me too? Because I don't understand. I 
don't understand why requiring HMOs to provide access to emergency care 
or specialists, or direct access for women to an OB-GYN, or giving a 
patient a chance to try an innovative new treatment that could save 
their life--I don't understand why these are not rights that the other 
side of the aisle thinks all Americans in all health plans should have. 
I don't understand why Republicans in this House are opposed to putting 
health decisions back in human hands where they belong.
  Perhaps the most frustrating part of this debate has been the 
horrible and unconscionable scare tactics. Not a day has gone by in the 
past two weeks, that I have turned on my television and not seen a 
commercial from the health insurance companies arguing that the Ganske-
Dingell bill will increase the number of uninsured. The fact remains, 
that the Congressional Budget Office has reported that the patient 
protections in this bill will only increase premiums by 4 percent over 
5 years. This translates into only $1.19 per month for the average 
employee. But they don't tell you that. CBO also found that the 
provision to hold health plans accountable--the provision the other 
side of the aisle opposes the most and claims would cause health care 
costs to skyrocket--would only account for 40 cents of that amount. But 
they won't tell you that either. They also won't tell you that an 
independent study by the consulting firm Coopers and Lybrand indicates 
that the cost of the liability provisions is potentially less than 
that, estimating that premiums would increase between three and 13 
cents a month per enrollee, or 0.03 percent.
  This is a small price to pay to make sure that health plans cover the 
health care services we all deserve.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a sham, these amendments, poison pills. I 
urge my colleagues to stand with me and pass a true Patient's Bill of 
Rights that provides real protections for all the 170 million Americans 
enrolled in a health insurance plan.

                          ____________________