On the recordJuly 24, 1998
let me recapture for everybody we were are at here, because I think you have to put in context this interesting and inventive motion to recommit. First of all, under the Patient Protection Act that will come to final passage, anybody who has a practical layman's feeling that they need emergency care, has a presumption they need it, automatically, you walk in, you say ``I have heart pain,'' or ``I have a chest pain,'' and you are covered. When you walk in, under the Patient Protection Act, a medical doctor on the site looking at the patient makes a decision, do you need further treatment? For example, if it turns out you over-ate and in fact need bicarbonate, you probably do not get an MRI. But if they think you have a severe heart problem or they think you might have cancer, you immediately have an opportunity for whatever emergency room treatment is necessary on a medical basis defined by the medical doctor. If you find out you have a longer-term problem, under the Patient Protection Act, if you happen to belong to an HMO that does not agree you should be treated, you immediately have an appeal internally, and within 72 hours they have to say ``yes,'' or ``no, you should get this.'' If you do not agree when they say no, you have an immediate external appeal to a medically appropriate group of specialists who fit the same topic, and they, within 72 hours, have to say yes, in fact you have pancreatic cancer, you deserve and need chemotherapy, period.…
Source
govinfo.gov




