This Article Full Text Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by SoRelle, R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by SoRelle, R.

(Circulation. 2001;104:e9011.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.

Ruth SoRelle, MPH

Circulation Newswriter

Controversial Patient Rights Bill Set for Contentious Conference
The US House of Representatives passed a controversial version of the "Patients’ Bill of Rights" on August 3, 2001, the last day before it began its August recess. The bill’s differences from the Senate version passed earlier set the stage for a heated conference session in which leaders from the House and Senate will try to resolve the differences between the 2 bills. The task for legislators will be to craft a version of the law that President Bush will sign but that will also maintain significant provisions to protect patients. Some experts fear that the result will be the same as that for bills passed during the Clinton administration—no law.

The bill was considered a victory for President Bush, who had opposed earlier versions that established broad guidelines for suits under the proposed legislation. The new version from the House is the result of frenzied negotiation between the White House and one of the bill’s primary sponsors, US Representative Charlie Norwood (R-Ga). President Bush, in a White House–released statement, said, "Today’s action brings us an important step closer to ensuring that patients get the care they need and that HMOs are held accountable."

However, US Representative Richard Gephardt (D-Mo) said that the bill faces a rocky future because the President had not gotten input from Democrats during the Norwood negotiations. "This could have been a bipartisan bill, but the White House squandered that opportunity," said Gephardt in a statement released by his office. "Instead, what we have is a . . . [Full Text of this Article]