Charles Norwood: “this is not the ideal process I would have designed for this debate today. I am disappointed that some of my colleagues…”

“this is not the ideal process I would have designed for this debate today. I am disappointed that some of my colleagues have allowed their passionate feelings about process to lead them into making dubious statements about substance, because this debate most assuredly should be about substance. I would like to remind my colleagues of what my amendment provides for injured patients. A patient who is injured when an insurer makes a negligent denial of claim for benefits will have the opportunity to hold that insurer accountable in State court. The patient will have access to the State courts that we have together supported for years. The patient will hold the insurer liable under the same State rules and procedures that a doctor will be held accountable under. Is not this what we have been fighting for all these years? My amendment includes those protections to prevent frivolous lawsuits that we have all fought to include in a bill. All of us. My amendment protects employers by allowing them to choose a designated decision-maker, so very important to all of us. My amendment requires patients exhaust all administrative remedies. My amendment also includes a rebuttable presumption in favor of the plan if the reviewer rose in favor of the plan. While I know my friends have raised concerns about this provision, I continue to raise just one simple question: If an expert reviewer says an insurer was right in denying care, how was the insurer negligent in denying care?”