McCain to Side With Democrats on Patients’ Rights Bill

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will join Senate Democrats today to announce his co-sponsorship of a modified version of legislation known as the “patients’ bill of rights.”

McCain will be joined at the news conference by Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), who also supports the bill, giving it more Republican backing in the Senate than in the past, when Senate Democrats did not have enough GOP votes to pass the legislation, which won bipartisan support in the House.

McCain began focusing on the issue last year and frequently discussed it during his unsuccessful bid for the GOP presidential nomination.

In another development Monday, however, top White House aides met with the bill’s chief House Republican sponsors, Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.), a dentist, and Rep. Greg Ganske (R-Iowa), a doctor, to pressure them to hold off on pushing the bill, according to Capitol Hill sources. It was not clear whether Norwood would abide by the White House request.

The White House meeting came on the heels of a Republican retreat over the weekend at which House GOP leaders pushed Norwood--who has led the effort for a bipartisan bill with Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.)--to work closely with his GOP colleagues instead of with Democrats.

“There were discussions with Norwood,” said John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). “There was a discussion with him about his bill and how to work constructively with the president.”

McCain got no similar request from the White House to hold his fire, according to his staff, perhaps because he has already made clear that he plans to play the maverick on several issues, including campaign finance reform and gun control.

White House officials said they did not want to discuss details of Monday’s meeting. But they added that Bush will soon tell Capitol Hill lawmakers his views on patients’ rights, which will track closely with legislation passed in Texas. Under the Texas law, an independent panel can determine whether patients’ complaints may be pursued as lawsuits.

“President Bush is committed to enacting a strong patients’ bill of rights similar to the one he worked on in Texas,” said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman. “He intends to make his principles known to members in the near future. . . . He is pleased there’s a bipartisan willingness to enact a strong patients’ bill of rights.”

The patients’ rights debate has festered for four years as lawmakers of both parties have found a compromise elusive. Chief disputes include whether to allow patients injured by medical treatment to sue their health plans for significant damages and whether such suits should be brought in state or federal courts. Another disagreement is over whether such rights as guaranteed payment for treatment at the nearest emergency room and access to specialists--and, for women, to obstetrician-gynecologists--should be given only to the 55 million Americans whose plans are regulated solely by the federal government.

The Senate bill by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) would extend such rights to about 160 million Americans--covering those in health plans offered by their employers as well as people who are self-employed and buy their insurance on their own. But, in an addition that was important to McCain, the bill would allow states to certify that their patients’ rights laws are equivalent to the federal version.

Another change in the bill would narrow the liability provision. It would only allow patients to sue health plans in state court if they had been injured because of a medical judgment. Patients would have to go to federal court if there was a dispute about an administrative matter, such as whether a particular treatment was covered in their HMO contracts. And there would be a $5-million cap on punitive damages in federal court, according to those involved in drafting the bill.

The legislation also states clearly, according to those who helped draft it, that employers could be sued only if they were directly involved in making medical decisions that proved injurious.

That may not be a strong enough shield for employers who continue to worry that they will end up providing the deep pockets in lawsuits.