As currently drafted, this bill guts HMO reform laws that States have already passed because it creates broad new caps on damages when HMOs deny coverage to patients, and so what we do is to add a safe harbor provision to specify that these State patient's bills of rights laws are not preempted by this bill. Nothing more. It goes without saying that these limits are far less friendly to consumers injured by HMOs than the patient protection laws already enacted by the States, and I would love to refer to the former Governor of Texas George W. Bush, who had a similar view in mind. They enacted an HMO law in Texas, and that law, still on the books, has a higher cap on punitive damages than this bill and no caps on noneconomic damages for suits against HMOs.
John Conyers: “As currently drafted, this bill guts HMO reform laws that States have already passed because it creates broad new caps…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a bill on HMO reform laws during a House floor debate.
Share
More from John Conyers
I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be postponed. Announcement by the Acting Chair The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to…
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: An Amendment Offered in Lieu of Amendment No. 2 Printed in Part A of House Report No. 115-363 Offered by…
My amendment would exempt from H.R. 469 settlement agreements and consent decrees intended to prevent discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, or other protected category. Given the often systemic nature of discriminatory…
You got a good point, but we are going to be able to get it passed. Let's let it go to the courts.





