Editorial Pages Debate Patients’ Rights Bills

With the Senate preparing to debate patients' rights legislation (S 283) sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John Edwards (D-N.C.), a number of editorial and op-ed pages across the nation have addressed the issue. The bill would allow patients to sue HMOs in state court for denial of benefits or quality of care issues and in federal court for non-quality of care issues. In addition, the bill 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). A sampling of the editorials and opinion pieces appears below.

In Favor

• Arizona Daily Star: "It is no accident" that Senate Democrats have elected to move the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards bill after assuming control of the Senate, Bonnie Erbe writes in the Daily Star. Erbe, who hosts the PBS program "To the Contrary" and writes for the Scripps-Howard news service, points out that the bill "has widespread public support and scant White House support." Noting that President Bush has pledged to veto the bill, Erbe urges Bush to "listen to some voices outside the Beltway, not just his extremely conservative inside circle of advisers" and support the legislation. She concludes, "The American public is tired of being denied treatment their doctors recommend and coverage for basic health care" (Erbe, Arizona Daily Star, 6/20).
• Detroit Free Press: The editorial points out that the bill "protects patients" and allows them to "seek redress" from health plans. Dismissing opposition to the bill as "huffing and puffing" against trial lawyers, the editorial concludes, "[B]ecause lawyers are so far down on the public trust scale -- at least until you need one -- it's convenient for opponents of health care reform to flog the entire profession as a bunch of greedy ambulance chasers. The claim that courts will be clogged and insurance costs will soar if the bill passes is merely a scare tactic to protect insurers -- who have ... been so generous with campaign contributions" (Detroit Free Press, 6/20).
• Springfield Union-News: "Once the sausage is in its casing and a bill has been approved, the nation will have its most significant legislation of the new millennium," according to a Union-News editorial. Pointing out that the bill has the support of "a number of Republicans who normally wouldn't cross the aisle for so much as a cup of coffee," the editorial maintains that the bill "puts doctors and patients back in charge." The Union-News concludes, "A patients' bill of rights is so popular with Americans that it is inevitable. Its time has come" (Springfield Union-News, 6/19).
• USA Today: In support of the bill, the editorial responded to industry opposition to the legislation. Calling the industry's arguments "shrill and hollow," USA Today points out that the legislation would only add "3 cents to 13 cents a month to premiums" and dismisses the claim that the bill would force businesses to drop coverage as "a clear scare tactic." The editorial also notes that litigation rates have remained low in states that have enacted patients' rights legislation. The editorial concludes, "[T]he only real reason to deny consumers the ability to seek meaningful legal recourse against insurers ... is that insurers don't want to be held accountable. And that's no good reason at all" (USA Today, 6/20).

Opposed

• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Maintaining that the Kennedy-McCain-Edwards bill would allow patients to win "excessive damage awards that serve primarily to enrich trial lawyers," the editorial supports a "rival" bill (S 889) sponsored by Sens. John Breaux (D-La.), Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.). Under the Breaux-Frist-Jeffords bill, 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). Calling the Breaux-Frist-Jeffords plan "closer to ... what Congress should enact," the editorial concludes, "Whatever the final shape of a [bill], health care consumers should resist the temptation to think Congress' work will be done. Regardless of who pays -- or doesn't pay -- for hospitalization and medical procedures, serious issues of safety and quality will remain (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 6/20).
• Florida Times-Union: The Kennedy-McCain-Edwards bill will "increase health insurance costs" and result in "fewer people [with] insurance," according to a Times-Union editorial. Calling the Breaux-Frist-Jeffords bill, which Bush supports, a "perfectly reasonable alternative," the editorial urges the GOP "Senate minority" to "stall the defective bill" to allow time to consider "various alternatives," such as "increased choices in the form of medical savings accounts." The editorial concludes, "If the goal is to create a larger class of wealthy trial lawyers and provide wealthy doctors with insulation from accountability, the Kennedy bill is the way to go. If the goal is to get disputes resolved, save money and provide patients with good, affordable health care, Bush has the answer" (Florida Times-Union, 6/19).
• USA Today: In an op-ed accompanying the USA Today editorial, Donald Young, interim president of the Health Insurance Association of America, writes that the "real 'protections'" under Kennedy-McCain-Edwards benefit lawyers who would win a "new chance to sue" -- resulting in "million dollar fees for the lawyers and 'coupons' of little or nothing of value for patients." Maintaining that patients would receive "better service" through an independent review process, Young concludes that the bill "would do nothing to improve patient care and would drastically increase coverage costs and the number of uninsured Americans" (Young, USA Today, 6/20).