While the majority of Americans favor a Patient’s Bill of Rights, there are a number of sticking points within the bill sponsored by Senators John McCain, Edward Kennedy, and John Edwards as well as the opposing bill sponsored by Senator William Frist. A close look at the specifics of the bills helps to illuminate our common ground as well as our differences.
Some matters that both sides agree on include: quick access to the nearest emergency room, guarantees that children can be treated by pediatricians, independent reviews of health plan decisions that limit treatment, the ability to consult a medical specialist without a referral from your primary doctor, among others.
One problem that President Bush has found with the McCain bill is that the bill allows patients to sue their Health Maintenance Organization in federal or state court. Some states allow for unlimited damages; damages that might drive up premiums and force some companies to stop offering health-care coverage to their employees. A second reason is that McCain’s bill allows patients to sue their employers just for contracting with the HMO that harms them. This too might cause a number of small businesses to rethink offering health care – a move that would add more people to the already long list of Americans living without adequate health care coverage.
The situation boils down to this: if the Patient’s Bill of Rights – in whatever form it eventually takes – forces up the costs of HMO’s, their corresponding increase in premiums will place health care beyond the reach of many working-class Americans.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, the Lantern offers the following compromise for these turbulent issues. Patients should be allowed to sue HMOs – not their employer – in state courts, as federal courts are incredibly backlogged and unable to render timely justice. To prevent outrageous damages from bumping up premiums, non-economic and punitive damages should be capped at two million dollars, more than Republicans would like but still low enough to prevent skyrocketing liability.
With the right to effectively sue HMOs for their basic rights, patients will have more clout when convincing HMOs to adopt practices that protect their lives and general well-being. With realistic caps on damages, HMOs can continue to offer their services at a cost that America can afford.
