GOVERNMENT RELATIONS ACTION ALERT
Quick House Contacts Needed in Support of the Patients’ Bill of Rights!
July 24, 2001
|
Patient Bill of Rights
The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001, S. 1052/H.R.
2563
The Senate passed its version of the Bipartisan Patient
Protection Act of 2001, S. 1052, on June 29, 2001 by a vote of 59 to 36.
It was sponsored by Senators John McCain (N-AZ), John Edwards (D-NC), and
Edward Kennedy (D-MA).
The House of Representatives passed its version of the
Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001, H.R. 2563, on August 2,
2001 by a vote of 226 to 203. It was sponsored by Representatives Greg
Ganske (R-IA), John Dingell (D-MI), Charlie Norwood (R-GA), and Marion Berry
(D-AR).
As the versions of the bills passed by both houses of Congress
are not identical, a conference committee will be convened to reconcile the
differences. Members of both the House and the Senate will be appointed to serve
on the committee. If an agreement is reached by the conference committee, the
compromise legislation will be reported out and sent back to the House of
Representatives and the Senate for an "up or down" vote, as no amendments are
permitted on conference reports. If the compromise legislation is passed by both
the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Bill will be sent to the
President. The President has two options-- sign the Bill into law or veto it. If
vetoed, the House of Representatives and the Senate may vote to override. In
both bodies, a two-thirds majority is required to override the veto. If Congress
can muster the votes necessary to override the veto, the measure becomes law.
Unfortunately, at printing, the conference committee had not yet begun to meet.
NASW supports the measure as passed by the Senate. The House
version is much weaker in several important areas including damage caps, the
right to sue, employer liability, states' rights, and scope. NASW will be
working throughout the conference process to see that the Senate provisions
prevail in the final compromise. |
The ISSUE AT HAND:
The House of Representatives is expected to begin debate the week of July
23rd on either H.R. 2563, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001, (the
House companion piece to S. 1052, the Bill recently passed by the Senate in
which NASW supports) or the competing Republican alternative, H.R. 2315, the
Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 2001 also known as the Fletcher bill!
ACTION NEEDED
Call, email, fax, or write your Congressman and urge him/her
to:
- Support H.R. 2563, known as the Ganske-Dingell Bill as the Bill is sponsored
by Representatives Greg Ganske (R-IA) and John Dingell (D-MI);
- Oppose any weakening amendments; and
- Defeat H.R. 2315, known as the Fletcher Bill, as it is sponsored by
Representative Ernie Fletcher (R-KY).
- To be most effective, contacts should be made as soon as possible.
Take Action Now on
NASW's Congress Web!
If you would like to send a letter, the House of Representatives mailing
addresses and phone numbers may be obtained for all Representatives at the
following link to the House website:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html.
All Members of Congress may also be reached through the Capitol Switchboard,
202-225-3121. Once connected to your Representative’s office, ask for the staff
person who handles the Patients’ Bill of Rights.
FAX numbers may be obtained from each individual House office via its website
or via telephone.
Thank you for your prompt and enthusiastic attention to this matter, as not
only is this legislation a vital issue for all health care providers, but also
for all Americans.
BACKGROUND
Bill Summary
The Ganske-Dingell legislation, H.R. 2563, if enacted, will
accomplish the following:
-
Protect all Americans Applicable to every American enrolled
in group, individual, church, state government, and local government health
plans- roughly 190 million people. No one is left without rights because the
state they live in has weaker protections. States are permitted to develop
stronger patient protections over and above those contained in the bill.
-
Ensure a swift internal review process and a fair and
independent external appeals process Outlines reasonable criteria and time
frames for initial claims review and internal appeals procedures. Creates a
timely and independent external review process which provides individuals with a
fair and unbiased decision. The review process can be expedited in the event of
a medical emergency. Neither party can select the external review entity and nor
can the parties involved unilaterally delay the review process by withholding
needed information. Reviewers are free to make an independent determination
about whether care is needed and are not bound by plan decisions or policies.
Patients have legal recourse if the managed care plan does not comply with the
decision of the external review entity. However, a reviewer cannot authorize
benefits not covered by the plan in question.
-
Protect employers against liability Employers cannot be
held responsible for the actions of managed care companies, unless the employer
actively participated in the decision to deny a health care service to a
patient. It ensures that only those few companies (less than 5 percent
nationwide) that act as health care insurers and directly participate in the
decision to deny a health care benefit to a patient accept legal responsibility.
A company has the ability to transfer all responsibility to a designated
decisionmaker who will then assume all liability. Self-insured,
self-administered plans employer plans from all federal liability. Members of
employer plan boards are protected from individual liability.
-
Institute plan accountability Allows patients to hold their
managed care plan accountable when plan decisions to withhold or limit care
result in injury or death. This bipartisan compromise allows patients to seek
redress in court for any wrong that causes an injury. The liability compromise
in Ganske-Dingell stems from recent Supreme Court decisions as well as concerns
voiced by employers on the importance of federal uniformity when administering
health plans. It tracks the Supreme Court decision in Pegram vs. Herdrich, which
stated that cases concerning medical judgment should be heard in state court,
but ensures that employers and insurers can uniformly administer their plans
across the country by putting those cases concerning administrative decisions in
federal court. Self-insured, self-administered plans are exempted from liability
for the performance of non-medical duties or violations of the plan's
requirements. Plans are not subject to federal liability for injuries caused by
a failure to comply with the terms and conditions of a plan.
-
Require exhaustion of appeals Patients must exhaust
internal and external appeals before going to court. The sole exception is when
death or irreparable injury has already occurred. Even in that case, either
party can request that the appeals process continue; the results of the process
are admissible in court. Unless a patient is seeking injunctive relief, all
appeals must be exhausted and the court must admit as evidence and consider any
external review decision.
-
Ban provider discrimination Ensures that any health care
provider who renders services in accordance with their state
license/certification is protected from discrimination by insurers with regard
to plan participation or indemnification. This provision is critical for social
workers, as many plans deny claims for clinical social work.
-
Cap Attorneys' Fees Contingency fees are limited to
one-third of damages awarded.
-
Guarantee access to necessary specialists Allows patients
access to non-participating providers if the plan's network is insufficient for
the enrollee's needs. Under these limited circumstances the plan must provide
this access at no greater cost than if the benefit were obtained from
participating providers. This provision ensures access while maintaining the
integrity of health plan networks. Patients with life-threatening, degenerative,
and disabling conditions are permitted to receive standing referrals to
specialists, so their primary care provider does not have to continue to
authorize every individual specialty care visit. Plans are also required to
allow such patients to designate a specialist as their primary care provider if
desired
-
Provide unfettered access to emergency room care Patients
may receive critical emergency room care from any emergency department, in or
out of the plan's network and without prior authorization under the "prudent
layperson" standard. If a patient believes he or she needs immediate medical
attention, he or she can go to any emergency room without worrying about
excessive co-pays and are guaranteed a smooth transition between emergency care
and follow-up treatment provided by the plan.
-
Ensure that women can easily access OB-GYN services, without
unnecessary barriers Women are given the opportunity to choose an OB-GYN as
their primary care provider. It also allows women to obtain routine OB-GYN care
from a participating OB-GYN without prior authorization or referral.
-
Ensure that children can access the specialty care they need,
without unnecessary barriers This bipartisan compromise ensures that
pediatricians can be selected as primary care physicians for children.
-
Ensure access to prescription drugs Plans must provide for
exceptions from the formulary when medically indicated. This protection is
critical for individuals who may have allergies to certain medicines or may have
tried the formulary drug without any success. Formulary restrictions must be
disclosed to enrollees and providers on request. Physicians and pharmacists must
participate in formulary development.
-
Ensure access to clinical trials Plans must cover routine
costs (those costs of treatment that would normally be covered by the plan) of
participation in certain clinical trials, including those run by the National
Cancer Institute, if the patient has a life-threatening or serious illness for
which no standard treatment is effective and participation in the trial offers
meaningful potential for significant clinical benefit.
-
Ensure continuity of care This bipartisan compromise
legislation protects all patients who are in the middle of a course of treatment
for a chronic or disabling condition, ensuring that they can keep their doctor
even if they are forced to change plans or their doctor is dropped from their
plan's network. It requires a transitional period in which they will continue to
receive care from the treating provider.
-
Ensure full disclosure Patients need to know about their
health plan rules before they seek care. The detailed disclosure requirements
that are part of this bipartisan compromise to assure patients understand their
rights include: plan benefits, limitations and exclusions; disenrollment; how
out-of-network services are covered; how to select and obtain referrals to
providers; emergency medical care coverage and definitions; prior authorization
rules; and grievance and appeals procedures.
-
Provide anti-gag rule protections Health plans
cannot preclude doctors and nurses from discussing all treatment options with
their patients.
-
Limit improper incentive arrangements Ensures that
doctors will not face excessive financial incentives limiting necessary care.
-
Ensure protections for patient advocacy. This legislation
protects health care providers from the threat of retaliation or firing when
they advocate on behalf of their patients or report quality issues to the
appropriate.
The Fletcher bill, H.R. 2315, is fundamentally flawed as
it:
-
Has a poor external review process;
-
Does not protect health care providers who advocate on behalf
of patients;
-
Does not permit accelerated decisionmaking in times of
immediate life-threatening need;
-
Does not hold plans accountable in the event of injury or death
as a result of a plan's actions;
-
Does not preserve one's right to pursue legal action in state
court;
-
Does not permit unfettered access to emergency room care
according to the "prudent layperson' standard;
-
Does not allow for direct access to specialty care, including
OB/GYN and pediatric specialists;
-
Does not ensure continuity of care;
-
Enacts barriers to access for some prescription drugs;
-
Does not provide for prompt payment for providers; and
-
Protections in the bill do not apply to state and local
government workers.
FEEDBACK/QUESTIONS:
Francesca Fierro O’Reilly Government Relations
& Political Action National Association of Social Workers 750 First
Street, NE, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20002 Ph: 800-638-8799, ext. 336 or
202-336-8336 Fax: 202-336-8311 Email: fforeilly@naswdc.org
TAKE ACTION NOW
What is Congress
Web
|