If you remember the debates about the Patients' Bill of Rights, where doctors and consumer-patients, consumer groups and others were together on this issue, understood that we needed to have protections against HMOs and the like, needed to be able to file an appeal to an egregious situation, I think a lot of it stemmed from the insurance companies and HMOs at that point in time saying we have to get back the equation here, and the way we will do it is we will improve our financial situation, and we will try to drive a wedge between those patients and their doctors. Where they finally have come together and have focused the light on us and we are losing ground on the Patients' Bill of Rights, we have to again drive that wedge, and the way we will do it is by telling doctors that their premiums are going up, because patients that are subject to malpractice are getting too much compensation for their injuries, which they cannot justify and cannot move in that direction. It is shameful.
John Tierney: “If you remember the debates about the Patients' Bill of Rights, where doctors and consumer-patients, consumer groups and…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of insurance companies on the Patients' Bill of Rights.
Share
More from John Tierney
I believe the things that really matter - ensuring all Americans can get a decent job that pays a fair wage, access affordable, quality healthcare, and retire with dignity and a little change in their pocket - are squarely in this…
I think, two points, most appalling are that on Pell Grants, it would eliminate some $90 billion of the mandatory funding that we have already paid for going forward and then when you talk about student loan repayment benefits, it would…
What we need to help with some ideas and what are we going to do, the enforcement provision that we put in was weak. It got watered down in the conference committee on that.





