Supporting Different Bills, New York Times, Boston Herald Editorials Advise Bush on Patients’ Rights

Calling a patients' bill of rights "long overdue," the New York Times writes in an editorial that by opposing legislation (S 283) sponsored by Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John Edwards (D-N.C.), President Bush is "on the wrong side ... both on the merits and as a political matter" (New York Times, 6/18) (see story 1). Under the legislation, patients could sue HMOs in state court for denial of benefits or quality of care issues and in federal court for non-quality of care issues. The legislation would cap damages awarded in federal court at $5 million, but state courts could award as much money in damages as the state allows (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 2/7). The Times writes that the bill has "broad" congressional support and would ensure that managed care companies are "held as accountable as doctors are ... for their actions." The White House, which is "threatening to veto" the legislation, is supporting an "alternative" bill (New York Times, 6/18). Under this bill (S 889), sponsored by Sens. John Breaux (D-La.), Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), patients with private health insurance could sue health plans after exhausting an appeals process by an outside review panel. Patients could only sue health plans in federal court, not state court, with damage awards capped at $500,000 (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 5/16). The Times argues that federal courts are "already overwhelmed" and are "more hospitable" to defendants than state courts. "Federalizing medical malpractice litigation is a bad idea," the editorial says. The editorial concludes: "The debate over patients' rights will be an early test of the White House's ability to work constructively with the new Democratic majority in the Senate. Bush, who pledged on the campaign trail to push for an expansion of patients' rights, would be wise to drop his veto threats [and] engage ... in serious talks with a view toward backing meaningful reform" (New York Times, 6/18).

Bush Should Veto
If patients' rights legislation does "more harm than good," President Bush should veto it, a Boston Herald editorial says. The editorial says that the president should press for a bill with "a prohibition on punitive damages and strict limits" on damages for "pain and suffering." In supporting the Breaux-Frist-Jeffords bill and its provision keeping lawsuits in federal court, the editorial says that federal involvement is "inescapable" in a "bill of rights" law since many health plans are not regulated by the states. By "confin[ing]" lawsuits to the federal courts, the bill would create a "uniform body of case law" which would apply to multi-state employers. Saying that every percentage point increase in premiums results in 300,000 people losing health coverage, the editorial says that Kennedy-McCain-Edwards would "wipe out" insurance coverage for 1.26 million people -- 45% more than the GOP plan would. The editorial concludes by saying that the Breaux-Frist-Jeffords bill is "a nice example of the choice between lesser evils" (Boston Herald, 6/19).