Detail for 2001 House Roll Call Vote 329

Public Citizen Congress Watch

Patients' Bill of Rights: Anti-Consumer Amendment.

This amendment to the Patients' Bill of Rights (H.R. 2315) was drafted by the Bush Administration after the president pressured moderate House Republicans to drop their support for the bipartisan version of the bill originally sponsored by Reps. Charles Norwood (R-Ga.), John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Greg Ganske (R-Iowa). This amendment substantially weakened the ability of consumers to hold HMOs accountable in court for denying medical care. It created a deadlock between the House and Senate, which passed a stronger, more pro-consumer bill. Passed.

NAACP

H.R. 2563 / Patients’ Bill of Rights / Limit Liability Amendment.

Amendment offered by Congressman Charlie Norwood (R-GA) to limit liability and damage awards when a patient is harmed by the denial of health care by his or her insurer. The amendment was agreed to.

AFL-CIO

HEALTH CARE/PATIENT PROTECTIONS—H.R. 2663.

Rep. Charles Norwood (R-Ga.) offered an amendment to the Patient Protection Act, also know as the Patients’ Bill of Rights, to replace the bill’s original liability provisions that enforce patient protections with the more limited liability provisions pushed by President George W. Bush.

The amendment creates bigger hurdles for patients seeking to sue health maintenance organizations that improperly deny them care. It also creates special protections for the HMOs. In addition, the liability provisions in the Norwood amendment actually would undermine existing state patient protections. The amendment passed.

Americans for Democratic Action

HR 2563. Patients’ Rights/HMO Liability.

Norwood (R-GA) amendment to limit liability and damage awards when a patient is harmed by denial of health care. This amendment was offered after patients’ rights opponents in the White House exerted pressure on Rep. Norwood to abandon a stronger bill. The legislation would allow a patient to sue a health maintenance organization (HMO) in state court but with federal, not state, law governing. An employer could remove cases to federal court. The bill would limit non-economic damages to $1.5 million. Punitive damages would be limited to the same amount and only allowed when a decision-maker fails to abide by a grant of benefits by an independent medical reviewer. Adopted.

U.S. Public Interest Research Group

Health Care/Oppose Weakening Patients’ Bill of Rights.

In the previous Congress, Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) had championed bipartisan patients’ bill of rights legislation guaranteeing consumers a strong right to sue their HMO. However, Norwood changed his position and backed a weaker proposal negotiated with President Bush to gut the pro-consumer bill, H.R. 2563, sponsored by Reps. Ganske (D-IA) and Dingell (D-MI). The House voted 218-213 to approve the Norwood amendment to H.R. 2563, limiting the right of patients to sue their HMO.

National Hispanic Leadership

Norwood Amendment (H.AMDT. 303) amends H.R. 2563 (Patients’ Bill of Rights).

Sponsored by Representative Norwood, (R-GA). The amendment sought to guarantee patients’ federal remedies to hold health plans accountable for wrongful denial or delay of medical care and caps noneconomic damages at $1.5 million and punitive damages at $1.5 million. The amendment unnecessarily preempts laws that states have passed in regard to patient protections in HMOs, changes the external review process to prohibit the independent medical reviewer from modifying the HMO’s decision, and limits patient rights to sue HMOs, according to group members. The amendment passed.

American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

Gutting the Patients' Bill of Rights.

On a near party-line vote, the House approved an amendment to the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act (H.R. 2563) that severely weakened the enforcement features in the bill. While the bill's basic protections were kept intact, the amendment took away the ability of consumers to enforce their rights under the bill and to hold managed care plans accountable when they wrongly deny or delay care that causes injury or death to a patient. AFSCME opposed this amendment, which was passed by the House.

Children's Defense Fund Action Council

Patient's Rights (HMO Liability) ,

Amendment that would limit liability and damage awards when a patient is harmed by a denial of health care. It would allow a patient to sue a health maintenance organization in state court but federal, not state, law would govern. An employer could remove certain cases to federal court. It would limit non-economic damages and punitive damages to $1.5 million and make other changes to the bill.

This amendment weakened the underlying bill on patients’ rights by restricting the legal remedies available to all those enrolled in HMOs, including children. These remedies are important to ensuring access to necessary medical care and holding HMOs responsible for the improper denial of care.

Service Employees International Union

Norwood Amendment: HMO Liability.

The House passed an amendment introduced by Rep. Charles Norwood (R-GA), a last minute deal worked out with the White House. The amendment replaces the bill's original liability provisions that enforce the patient protections with more limited liability provisions pushed by President Bush. The bill sets up more obstacles for patients to sue HMOs that deny or withhold treatment while providing special protections for the HMOs.

The amendment undermines states' regulation of health care by overriding state laws that provide greater protection to consumers, including internal and external appeals procedures. The amendment passed. Six Republicans voted against it and three Democrats voted for it.

The National Breast Cancer Coalition

Protection of Patients in Private Health Plans.

NBCC supports passage of comprehensive legislation that would make quality health care available and accessible to everyone. Our goal is a dynamic healthcare system that recognizes quality, appropriately manages cost, and supports research.

Short of access to high quality health care for all women, we believe that breast cancer patients in private health plans have fundamental rights including: coverage for routine health costs associated with participation in clinical trials; the right to receive accurate information about their health plans; access to the right providers; involvement in treatment decisions that are based on good science; and confidentiality of their health information.

We also believe that any patient protection bill must include a strong enforceable mechanism with a right to sue in state and federal court. Under the current law, managed care companies can only be held accountable for the cost of the benefit it should have provided in the first place. This does no good if a patient has died, or if a patient has suffered grave loss as a result of denial of care. While the debate over patient protections should not be about lawsuits and remedies, it is essential that it be about how to ensure that breast cancer patients, and all patients, are guaranteed access to the quality care they need. If health plans comply with the law then those enforcement mechanisms will never have to be used. As patients, we need to know that these mechanisms are in place for our protection.