By Anjetta McQueen
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, July 31, 2001; 12:16 PM
WASHINGTON Ð The White House and key lawmakers narrowed their differences in one major area of patients' rights legislation Tuesday, but Democrats disputed suggestions they were close to an overall compromise on a bill that would meet President Bush's terms.
"There clearly are additional issues that would need to be discussed," Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said after he and other Democrats met with Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga. Norwood is the leading Republican supporter of a Democratic-backed bill that Bush has pledged to veto, but he has been bargaining with the White House in search of a compromise.
White House and Norwood aides met past midnight in hopes of reaching a compromise. Two administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they came to terms with Norwood on the question of lawsuits filed by patients alleging their HMOs denied them necessary care.
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer all but declared victory: "The nation is on a threshold of having a patients' bill of rights that can be signed into law. There is some additional work that needs to be done but many of the differences that remain are easily bridgeable if others who are working with Congressman Norwood are interested in bridging those differences."
But Democrats said these claims were overstated. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said the sides were nearing agreement to restrict suits to federal court in the cases of employers who self-finance and self-administer the insurance coverage for their employees.
"It's a response to the president's very legitimate concerns and it ought to be the basis of a sound compromise," said Kennedy, adding that Norwood was taking the proposal back to the White House Tuesday.
Rep. Greg Ganske, R-Iowa, a surgeon, who has helped Norwood shepherd moderates on the issue, said: "The ball is now in the White House court."
He suggested that business groups were satisfied that the proposal would protect large employers who fully assume the risk of providing employees health care.
"We think this could effectively seal the deal, and we could have a nice bipartisan vote and go home for August recess and the administration can move onto other issues in fall," Ganske said in a phone interview Tuesday.
A vote could take place as soon as Thursday, he said, adding that lawmakers would spend the time in between hashing out the rules for debate and voting on the patients' rights issue.
He said other differences could be worked out.
Still to be addressed is the broader question of whether suits against most other HMOs and health plans could be brought in state or federal court, and what, if any, limits should be placed on damages.
The developments unfolded rapidly after a presidential phone call to Norwood on Monday in which GOP sources said Bush urged the rebellious Republican to side with his party, not the Democrats, on the patients' rights issue.
Norwood's spokesman, John Stone, declined comment on the conversation. He said they were close to a deal but added the congressman is committed to staying with bipartisan supporters of the bill, meaning Democrats who have shied away from compromises suggested by the White House.
The measure is designed to provide patients new rights in dealing with HMOs and other insurance companies, including better access to emergency room care and treatment by medical specialists. While broad agreement exists on types of patient protections to be included, disagreements come in over the extent to which patients should be permitted to sue HMOs and the size of damages for which insurers should be liable.
Norwood and most Democrats favor a bill with broader access to courts, including state courts, where trial lawyers feel such cases are more likely to prevail. They say the right to sue is essential if the new protections are to be meaningful.
Bush and most Republicans prefer to send most suits to federal courts and to limit damages. They say patients worry more about getting treatment than filing suits. And because the Democratic bill would make insurance more costly, they say, some people would lose coverage.
The showdown on patients' rights legislation loomed as House Majority Leader Dick Armey waded forcefully into the debate. In a speech prepared for delivery to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, Armey criticized the bill as too costly because it encourages wronged patients to sue health plans instead of finding other ways to get insurers to pay for needed care. He also said patients should be able to use tax-free accounts and other methods of meeting their health costs.
"Yes, patients should be able to sue their HMO," Armey said in his prepared remarks. "But even more, they should be able to fire their HMO. This is America. Patients should have the right and the ability to take their business elsewhere."
Design copyright Scars Publications and Design. Copyright of individual pieces remain with the author. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.
