Guest guest Posted June 26, 2001 Report Share Posted June 26, 2001 Tuesday | June 26, 2001 Ellen Goodman: Patients' rights Yes, the insured need this legislation, but what about the uninsured? 06/26/2001 By ELLEN GOODMAN If you were a foreigner eavesdropping on the bruising battle in the Senate, you would assume the most important health care issue in America is the right to sue a health maintenance organization. You would believe we all sit around waiting for an appendix to burst or a malignancy to spread, hoping we will be denied a specialist or an experimental treatment so we – or probably our heirs – could sue the bejesus out of our insurer. That is what it has come down to. For five years, we have been wrangling our way to a national patients' bill of rights. Those who regard insurers as an enemy to fight in order to get a test are close to getting a handful of weapons for self-defense. Both sides of the Senate seem ready to guarantee access to specialists, to emergency rooms, to clinical trials of experimental drugs and to independent reviews of medical claims. But they still disagree over when and where we can sue and how much we get if the HMO improperly denies a claim. That has produced a battle of the Capitol titans. Republicans and Democrats are fighting for control of the Senate agenda. Lobbyists are fighting for a piece of the action. The president is threatening a veto. All over damages. Well, I have no doubt there are too many lawyers in the Senate. But the senators who want to make it easier to sue aren't really chasing ambulances. They see the threat of liability as a way to scare the HMOs straight. Ron Pollack of the health care advocacy group Families USA calls it a deterrence plan or "litigation prevention." After all, California has had the right to sue for unlimited damages since January. Not a case has been filed, and HMOs are referring more patients for swifter treatment. Nevertheless, as I watch the heat and light – and money – being expended over the question "to sue or not to sue," I am beginning to long for a little perspective. This isn't a bill of rights for patients. It is a bill of rights for people who have insurance. "To listen to the rhetoric on Capitol Hill, you would think everyone had coverage, and we are just arguing over access to certain doctors," says Jack Meyer of the Economic and Social Research Institute. "I wish we would spend a fraction of the energy that has been spent on this patients' bill of rights on assuring basic coverage. I have insurance, and I get very frustrated at times. But if you don't have a health plan at all, it is a very academic issue." Let's run the numbers. More than 43 million Americans are in this "academic state." That is about 15 percent. They don't have an insurance company to get frustrated at. The United States is – may I repeat – the only industrialized country that doesn't guarantee the right to health care. Conservatives, including the president, couch their opposition to the new bill with concern for consumers. The party line is that lawsuits would drive up the cost of health care and drive out consumers. But under their auspices a serious plan to expand coverage can't get out of a think tank. Have you seen the ad featuring the mother of a toddler saying, "I will lose my coverage if costs go up!" Well, many of the HMOs claiming that they will go broke from frivolous lawsuits are paying their own chief executive officers very nicely, thank you. As Families USA reported this week, the 25 highest-paid executives of for-profit health plans made a collective $201 million last year. And that isn't counting the unexercised stock options. Yes, health care coverage is expensive. Most HMOs aren't making a bundle even if their top chief executives are. It is expensive, as Mr. Meyer says, "because every day we are discovering new things, and we want it all." But so far, we are just nibbling around the edges of our problems. What is expected in many countries is considered pie in the American sky. Even under the current crazy-quilt system, we could begin expanding from the coverage of elders and children to parents and single adults. It is time to pass this bill of rights for the insured. Those of us with health care deserve some tools to deal with the diffident HMO clerk on the other end of the line. But there is a waitress out there who can't afford a mammogram and a maintenance worker who can't afford prostate screening, and neither of them has an insurer, let alone a lobbyist. Their great American dream is not, I promise you, finding someone to sue. Ellen Goodman writes for the Boston Globe. Her e-mail address is ellengoodman@.... Martha Murdock, DirectorNational Silicone Implant FoundationDallas, Texas Headquarters Purposes for which the Corporation (NSIF) is organized are to perform the charitable activities within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code Section 501©(3) and Texas Tax Code Section 11.18 ©(1).Specifically, the Corporation is organized for the purposes of education and research of Silicone-related disease. Attachment: vcard [not shown] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 Patients' rights • The Evidence on Patients' Rights in Europe: an Active Citizenship Conference, 10 pages, HSCNews, issue 36, April 2007 (report on the results of a survey on behalf of the Patients Association). For a PDF of the report, Click here • Should the UK National Health Service Take More Account of Patients' Rights?, 42 pages, November 2006 (report on the results of a survey on behalf of the Patients Association). For a PDF of the report, Click here • Public Perception of Patients' Rights Within the NHS, 76 pages, December 2005 (report on the results of a public opinion poll for the Patients' Association). http://www.patients-association.org.uk/publications_level2.asp?level2_ID=251 • Patients' Rights in Europe and the UK, 27 pages, December 2005 (background report for the Patients' Association). For a PDF of the report, Click here • Patients' Rights in Europe: a Citizens' Report, 18 pages, March 2005 (summary of meeting organised by Active Citizenship Network at the European Parliament, Brussels, February 28th to March 1st 2005; report for OxfordVision 2020). http://www.oxha.org/knowledge/publications/oxha_dialogue_patient_rights.pdf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 I find the use of 'standardise, and regulation' in the third link from WHO distrubing, however I have only skimmed over it and so far only read that link. What seems encouraging is this 5. Right to free choice Doctors in most of Europe's healthcare systems are required to obtain informed patient consent to prescribe particular treatments. Patient choice of treatment or treatment providers, however, is limited. perhaps we can salvage something from that particular area. I have no idea of the laws on this as it stands. Those of us asking for different than Thyroxine only treatment may have an interest in that statement. lotsa luv Dawnx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 The US case for this is Matthies v. Mastromonaco (160 NJ 26) Non-invasive therapies require informed consent as well as invasive therapies. Then there is AMA ethics statement 8.20(4): " Among the various treatments that are scientifically valid, medically indicated, legal, and offer a reasonable chance of benefit for patients, the decision of which treatment to use should be made between the physician and patient. " I think that there is a similar statement from the GMC... Have a great day, > > I find the use of 'standardise, and regulation' in the third link from > WHO distrubing, however I have only skimmed over it and so far only > read that link. > What seems encouraging is this > > 5. Right to free choice > Doctors in most of Europe's healthcare systems are required to obtain > informed patient consent to > prescribe particular treatments. Patient choice of treatment or > treatment providers, however, is > limited. > > perhaps we can salvage something from that particular area. I have no > idea of the laws on this as it stands. Those of us asking for > different than Thyroxine only treatment may have an interest in that > statement. > > lotsa luv > Dawnx > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.