Editorial: Avoid hypocrisy when setting patients’ rights

Sunday, Jan. 24, 1999 | 9:46 a.m.

Considering President Clinton has championed HMO reform, and sought a patients' bill of rights that would essentially place in law for all Americans what the federal court did for Medicare recipients, a reasonable person would assume that those in his administration would not appeal the decision. Guess again.

A report in Friday's edition of the New York Times notes that a fierce debate is underway in the Clinton administration on this issue. According to confidential memos obtained by the newspaper, Medicare officials are urging Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Other administration officials counter that such a move will make the administration look ridiculous.

One of the reasons Medicare officials have cited in advocating a challenge to the court's ruling is the cost incurred by appeals, which these officials claim could be as much as $343 million annually. But Shalala should reject this advice. If the president believes that all Americans should have the protection of a patients' bill of rights, then the federal government should set the example first, requiring those HMOs it contracts with to permit appeals that will help improve medical care.

archive