Letter: HMO legislation good for patients

Friday, July 6, 2001 | 9:44 a.m.

A June 28 Sun editorial, "Patients deserving of fairness," addressed the debate over a patients' bill of rights. Unfortunately, the editorial contained misinformation about a patients' bill of rights introduced in the U.S. House on June 26 by many Republicans, including myself.

Assuring access to emergency care, pediatric services, specialists, and OB-GYN care are principles of every patients' bill of rights proposal before Congress. Any bill must guarantee open communication between doctors and patients. And patients deserve recourse when denied care by an HMO through a fair and expeditious review process.

Our bill provides for an independent external review process, allowing patients to appeal to a board of medical professionals who are not, in any way, related to the health plan. Contrary to the editorial, the process is impartial, not "rigged." In fact, our bill's review process is identical to the bill by Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga.

Ultimately, Nevadans want to receive the care they need when they need it, not spend endless time and money in court. Unlimited liability will force costs to skyrocket, and employers have told me they would have no choice but to stop offering health insurance to their employees. What good is a patients' bill of rights if Nevadans can't access health care in the first place?

Our bill provides patient protections without jeopardizing access to health care. It allows patients recourse through an independent review process first, and through litigation, as a last resort. This legislation assures that Nevadans receive quality and affordable health care -- the ultimate goal.

REP. JIM GIBBONS