Editorial: Gridlock is broken finally on HMO bill

Friday, July 2, 1999 | 10:01 a.m.

No one likes to see the U.S. Senate effectively shut down over partisan bickering. But Senate Democrats, who have been trying to get an honest debate about a patient's bill of rights, were left with no choice this past week. Democrats used parliamentary maneuvers, which prevented passage of an agriculture spending bill, until the GOP majority agreed to a full debate on HMO reform.

After a standoff lasting a week, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., finally conceded the fight on Tuesday, allowing the Democrats to offer enough amendments when votes are taken on the GOP-sponsored patient's bill of rights, legislation that falls far short of the protections offered by the Democrat bill. Democrats were worried that if not enough amendments were permitted, Republicans could essentially ramrod their bill through virtually unchanged.

One of the big issues dividing Republicans and Democrats is the right of a patient to sue an HMO if he has been harmed by an insurer's decision. Current law prohibits such suits, making HMOs and foreign diplomats the only two groups in the United States immune from being held accountable in a court of law. Our society definitely is too litigious, but it is unconscionable that those severely injured by an HMO have no way to recover actual and punitive damages. Even on this issue, though, there may be room for compromise. One option might be permitting lawsuits but putting a reasonable cap on punitive damages.

While this debate has fallen mostly along party lines, the bottom line is that this shouldn't be the case. The 2000 elections are just a year away, but both parties should quit angling for the best political advantage on every issue and give a little so a patient's bill of rights can become law. It is hoped that the Senate, which may vote on the legislation in two weeks, can act like grownups and pass a patient's bill of rights, in turn prodding the House to also do the same thing.