Health - Patients' Bill of Rights

Patients´ Bill of Rights

Statements

Statement before the House of Representatives
July 24, 1998

By Henry A. Waxman

Mr. Speaker, today this House has a very basic decision to make: Are we going to pass effective and enforceable legislation to ensure a patient bill of rights for people in this country?

Are we going to agree to the Ganske-Dingell proposal which is going to give people the rights they need to deal with arbitrary and unfair treatment by big insurance companies and HMOs?

Or are we going to rush through a Republican leadership bill that is designed to do just one thing, fool people into thinking that something is being done to help them just long enough to get through the next election? Because that is exactly the issue before us.

Are we going to pass legislation that requires HMOs to have an adequate number and variety of health care providers so that people can get the services they need and are paying for? The Ganske-Dingell bill does that. The Republican leadership bill does not.

Are we going to be sure that people can get to a specialist if they need one? Ganske-Dingell says yes. The Republican bill does not.

Are we going to let insurance companies make the decisions about what medical patients need? Ganske-Dingell says decisions belong to the patients and their doctors. The Republican bill does not. That is why the doctors support the Ganske-Dingell legislation.

Today this House has a very basic decision to make: are we going to pass effective and enforceable legislation to ensure a patient bill of rights for people in this country?

Are we going to agree to the Ganske-Dingell proposal which is going to give people the rights they need to deal with arbitrary and unfair treatment by big insurance companies and HMO's?

Or are we going to rush through a Republican leadership bill that is designed to do just one thing: fool people into thinking that something is being done to help them just long enough to get through the next election.

Because that is exactly the issue before us.

Are we going to pass legislation that requires HMO's to have an adequate number and variety of health care providers so that people can get the services they need--and are paying for? The Ganske-Dingell bill does that. The Republican leadership bill does not.

Are we going to be sure that people can get to a specialist if they need one? Ganske-Dingell says yes. The Republican bill does not.

Are we going to let insurance companies make the decisions about what medical care patients need? Ganske-Dingell says that decision belongs to the doctor and the patient. The Republican bill does not. It actually increases the power of insurance companies to decide what is medically necessary. Since when did insurance bureaucrats become qualified to be doctors?

Are we going to override the protections the States have enacted to assure people health benefits and give them some consumer protections? Ganske-Dingell builds on and strengthens them. The Republican leadership bill actually takes away the protections that are there.

And are we going to make sure that people have an effective way to enforce the rights we are giving them, or not?

Ganske-Dingell says if you can't enforce it, you don't have it. The Republican leadership bill sneaks in language that makes sure the insurance companies decision about what is medically necessary is not going to be challenged.

We owe the American people legislation that works to protect their rights. We need to level the field between big insurance and their desire to profits, and patients who depend on their insurance and HMOs for their health care. We owe people a way to make sure they get the medical services they need from their HMO or any other health plan.

This debate should be about patients, not profits.

The Republican leadership bill is on this floor today only for one reason: after months of opposition and working hand in hand with big insurance to kill any patient bill of rights, they noticed the polls told them the American people were demanding action.

So Mr. Gingrich and his allies have responded with a cynical bill that is designed to look like it's doing something when it is not.

They've made sure that this bill didn't get looked at by the Committees or the public. They've made sure that we vote on this before anyone has a chance to know what it really does.

They claimed to have privacy protections--but actually they made it OK to sell medical records. When they were caught, they changed it.

They claimed to make sure emergency care would be covered if a prudent person would think it was necessary. But they actually weakened the protections we already have in law for Medicare beneficiaries. They said severe pain wouldn't be a reason to go. They said the HMO could make you foot most of the bill if you didn't go to their facility. In other words, they gutted the protections.

Well they got caught again, so they changed it.

How many things are in this bill that haven't been found yet? It's a cynical way to deal with people's lives and health care.

Does anyone believe that a Republican leadership that has urged insurance companies to spend money to defeat these bills is actually going to write a good one? Does anyone believe that after they've fought it every step of the way, they've suddenly seen the light?

Let's adopt the bill that works. Let's adopt the bill that has been endorsed by the doctors and the nurses and the patients.

Let's adopt the Ganske-Dingell bill.