Guest guest Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 americanprogress.com HEALTH CARE HMOs Over Patients The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that patients cannot sue HMOs under state law, even " if their HMOs refuse to pay for doctor-recommended medical care. " The decision " could affect millions of patients " and " invalidated an important part of patient rights laws in several states. " Patients will now be able to fight for their rights only in federal court, where HMOs are protected from having to pay punitive damages and where cases are more restricted. Because Congress and the White House have refused to pass a federal patients bill of rights, the Supreme Court was forced to " rely on a federal pension benefit law that predates the rise of managed care. " For his part, the President threw the full weight of the White House behind the HMO industry, arguing for the defeat of the Texas law. Despite this, White House spokesman Trent Duffy claimed, " The president continues to support Texas's law. " DECISION STRIKES DOWN EFFORTS TO REIN IN HMOs: According to Public Citizen, The Texas Health Care Liability Act that was struck down " was the first state law to give patients the right to sue HMOs for denying 'appropriate and medically necessary' treatment. " The state passed the law in 1997 " to prevent HMOs from padding their bottom lines through abusive denials of coverage by holding HMOs to a professional medical standard of ordinary care. " Nine states have since followed Texas's lead and enacted similar legislation. Without a federal patients' bill of rights, HMOs have been allowed to continue these practices, even as their profits increased 52 percent last year alone. BREAKING PROMISE, BUSH HELPS DEFEAT LAW HE BRAGGED ABOUT: According to AP, the Texas cases that brought the decision " were filed under a patients' rights law passed when President George W. Bush was governor. " But the White House " sided with insurance carriers when the two cases reached the high court. " The position stands in stark contrast to 2000 presidential candidate George W. Bush, who bragged the Texas law would be the kind of thing he would support in the White House. In an 8/17/00 USA Today op-ed entitled, " I Will Build On My Record, " Bush wrote, " I signed into law some of the toughest patient-protection laws in the nation, " and claimed, " I support a patient bill of rights for all patients, similar to those already enacted in Texas. " He also claimed in a 2000 presidential debate that " I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas. " GOING TO BAT FOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS: The president's decision to reverse his previous position aligned him with two managed care companies in the case – Aetna Health Inc. and Cigna. Since 2000, Aetna executives have given President Bush more than $22,000, and have given the president's party more than $835,000 in soft money. Similarly, Cigna executives have given the president more than $27,000 and the Republican Party more than $850,000. In a letter protesting the president's stance, the nonpartisan Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights noted that " Among your campaign Pioneers (bundlers of $100,000 or more in contributions) are seven former or current HMO executives " whose companies will benefit from the policy reversal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 Frank, what can " we " do to help? By the way, thank you so much for your dedication, and the useful information you continually supply us with. I have learned so much through your contibutions and unbiased posts. Cherish >Frank <califpacific > >alternative_medicine_forum > HMOs Over Patients >Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:10:15 -0700 (PDT) > > >americanprogress.com > >HEALTH CARE > >HMOs Over Patients > >The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that patients cannot sue HMOs under state >law, even " if their HMOs refuse to pay for doctor-recommended medical >care. " > >The decision " could affect millions of patients " and " invalidated an >important part of patient rights laws in several states. " > >Patients will now be able to fight for their rights only in federal court, >where HMOs are protected from having to pay punitive damages and where >cases are more restricted. > >Because Congress and the White House have refused to pass a federal >patients bill of rights, the Supreme Court was forced to " rely on a federal >pension benefit law that predates the rise of managed care. " > >For his part, the President threw the full weight of the White House behind >the HMO industry, arguing for the defeat of the Texas law. Despite this, >White House spokesman Trent Duffy claimed, " The president continues to >support Texas's law. " > >DECISION STRIKES DOWN EFFORTS TO REIN IN HMOs: > > According to Public Citizen, The Texas Health Care Liability Act that was >struck down " was the first state law to give patients the right to sue HMOs >for denying 'appropriate and medically necessary' treatment. " > >The state passed the law in 1997 " to prevent HMOs from padding their bottom >lines through abusive denials of coverage by holding HMOs to a professional >medical standard of ordinary care. " > >Nine states have since followed Texas's lead and enacted similar >legislation. Without a federal patients' bill of rights, HMOs have been >allowed to continue these practices, even as their profits increased 52 >percent last year alone. > >BREAKING PROMISE, BUSH HELPS DEFEAT LAW HE BRAGGED ABOUT: > >According to AP, the Texas cases that brought the decision " were filed >under a patients' rights law passed when President George W. Bush was >governor. " > >But the White House " sided with insurance carriers when the two cases >reached the high court. " > >The position stands in stark contrast to 2000 presidential candidate George >W. Bush, who bragged the Texas law would be the kind of thing he would >support in the White House. > >In an 8/17/00 USA Today op-ed entitled, " I Will Build On My Record, " Bush >wrote, " I signed into law some of the toughest patient-protection laws in >the nation, " and claimed, " I support a patient bill of rights for all >patients, similar to those already enacted in Texas. " > >He also claimed in a 2000 presidential debate that " I don't want the law to >supersede good law like we've got in Texas. " > >GOING TO BAT FOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS: > >The president's decision to reverse his previous position aligned him with >two managed care companies in the case – Aetna Health Inc. and Cigna. > >Since 2000, Aetna executives have given President Bush more than $22,000, >and have given the president's party more than $835,000 in soft money. > >Similarly, Cigna executives have given the president more than $27,000 and >the Republican Party more than $850,000. > >In a letter protesting the president's stance, the nonpartisan Foundation >for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights noted that " Among your campaign Pioneers >(bundlers of $100,000 or more in contributions) are seven former or current >HMO executives " whose companies will benefit from the policy reversal. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.