[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16] [House] [Pages 23396-23397] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]RIGHT TO SUE AN ERISA HMO The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, Members on both sides of this aisle have joined together to address one of the most egregious violations of the individual rights upon which our Nation was founded, the right to due process in court. Since 1974, federally governed managed care insurance plans have enjoyed a near total immunity from any legal accountability for injuring and killing the citizens of this country for monetary gain. No thinking, feeling American can agree to let that stand. I tell my colleagues today, Mr. Speaker, that will not stand. But, Mr. Speaker, the industry lobbyists who have profited behind the skirts of ERISA are now engaged in a last-ditch fight to deceive the Members of this body and the American public concerning the truth of what we seek. So, tonight, Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight. The bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act that I have cosponsored with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) provides full relief from the travesty of current law while providing full protection for employers and decent insurers against frivolous and vicarious lawsuits. The managed care lobby has told us that employers could be sued for simply offering a health plan to their employees, they are actually going around saying that, or could be sued just by choosing a particular plan. Mr. Speaker, read page 60 of the bill beginning on line 33. The bill says, ``Does not authorize any cause of action against an employer, or other plan sponsor maintaining the group health plan, or against an employee of such an employer.'' One cannot be any clearer than that. Employers cannot be sued for offering health insurance in our bill or choosing any particular specific plan. Now, the HMO argues that lawyers could find a way around that protection. But the United States Supreme Court has held that ``plain meaning'' interpretations would prevail. Who do you believe, the lobbyists or the Supreme Court? There is only one way under this bill that employers can be sued. If an employer decides to do more than offer health insurance, by trying to practice medicine, yes, then they can be sued. If an employer decides to weigh in on a decision of medical necessity, they will be held responsible for that decision, as they should be. But if that employer chooses to stay out of the dispute and leaves the decision up to medically trained professionals, they remain shielded from any type of liability, as they should be. Read the bill. Page 61, beginning on line 13, an employer can only be sued if, and I quote out of the bill, Mr. Speaker, ``The employer's . . . exercise of discretionary authority to make a decision on a claim for benefits covered under the plan . . . resulted in personal injury or wrongful death.'' Would a Member of this body like to argue that anyone should be able to wrongfully cause the death of a human being and then be shielded from that responsibility? Let us have that debate. I think they will not argue that. Under this bill, an employer is free to buy any health plan on the market for their employees and face no liability whatsoever for having done so. If the employer is asked to step into the middle of the dispute between the employee and the health plan, they simply should refuse, leave the matter up to the doctors, and face no liability whatsoever. The managed care lobby has told us that this bill opens the door for unlimited punitive damages against health plans, with jury awards soaring into the hundreds of millions of dollars. [[Page 23397]] Read the bill. We have left a way for insurance companies to remain shielded from any punitive damages, not one nickel. Read the bill. Page 60, beginning on line 13, and I quote again, Mr. Speaker, ``The plan is not liable for any punitive, exemplary, or similar damages . . . if the plan or issuer complied with the determination of the external appeal entity.'' It cannot be any simpler than that. There is only one option left the HMO lobby to defeat the legislation: Distort the issue, scare the employers into believing it. We know it, and they know it. I believe that truth and justice will prevail during next week's vote on this issue. No amount of lies, Mr. Speaker, no amount of threats will deter the Members of this body who know the truth from moving forward on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I ask my fellow Members who support this bill to spread the truth to those who may not know it yet. This evil cannot be allowed to stand. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing my colleagues next week on the floor of this House when the truth will come forward as to what is happening to health care in the United States of America. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. {time} 1745 In Agreement With Right to Sue an ERISA HMO Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that I have worked in this place for a long time, and I have worked with a lot of people. None have been more steadfast, courageous, harder working, more able or more dedicated on the matters upon which we work, and I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia and thank him. I want to make the observation that I hope my colleagues will have listened to the gentleman from Georgia, because what he is talking about is people who are desperately in need of the protection he and I seek to provide. I want to point out that what he is seeking to do here is to assure that employers who do not intrude into the every day management of the particular fund that is set up for the health care and for the procurement of health care are absolutely protected against liability. The gentleman is totally correct in that. And the only time that an employer would incur a liability under this legislation is if he had actively intervened against the beneficiary. And so I want to first commend the gentleman. Second of all, I want to urge my colleagues to listen to him. He has been speaking great wisdom. He has also been speaking of justice and decency and something that the health care industry has not always been providing to the recipients of health care. It is an extremely important point in this legislation. Honest and decent employers have nothing to fear, and HMOs which have been denying people the health care to which they are entitled under the contract do have something to fear. And, indeed, they should. They are the folks that I happen to be after. ____________________