House Patients’ Rights Bill Would ‘Undercut,’ ‘Rollback’ States’ Laws, Editorials Argue

Although patients would "gain at least a little protection" under the patients' rights bill (HR 2365) that the House passed earlier this month, a Los Angeles Times editorial warns that the legislation would override "stronger patient protections" in California's patients' rights law and urges House and Senate negotiators to "get to work on changing that." The editorial adds that while the patients' rights bill (S 1052) passed by the Senate in June "does go overboard in favor of lawsuits," the House bill "undercuts not just lawyers but genuine victims of managed care miserliness and poor judgment." A third problem with the House bill, according to the editorial, is its provision allowing health plans to select members of independent appeals panels to evaluate health care disputes, provided that the reviewers do not have an "economic link" to the company. The editorial points out that "such reviewers have an economic link to the HMO because they are hired by it." The editorial concludes that House and Senate negotiators should "help make sure that the final bill protects state's rights, eases patient appeals and ensures the independence of medical review boards" (Los Angeles Times, 8/17).

State Law 'Rollback'?
A Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial also warns that the House patients' rights bill "actually rolls back patient protections" in patients' rights laws passed by states such as Minnesota. The editorial urges House and Senate negotiators to "eliminate those rollbacks" in the final bill, maintaining that a federal patients' rights law should "set a national floor under patient protections, not a ceiling on what states can do." Although the editorial admits that the House bill would establish a "uniform national standard" for patient protections and "reduce the incentive for companies to shop among states for a low-regulation environment," the editorial states that "uniformity isn't worth the price if it means pushing all states to a low national threshold." The editorial concludes, "There are dangers in overregulating managed care companies, and there is plenty of room for compromise in a federal patients' bill of rights. But the latest House version shows every sign of doing more harm than good" (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 8/17).