June 29, 2000
Member of Congress U.S. House of Representatives and U.S.
Senate Washington, DC
Dear Member of Congress:
The American Medical Association (AMA) recently circulated a letter to
Members of Congress claiming the Dingell-Norwood patients’ bill of rights
"does not create any new liability for employers." The AMA's assertion
is completely untrue and every organization representing
America's employers has reached the same conclusion. The AMA does not
speak for employers on this issue, we do.
As employers who would bear direct liability under the Dingell-Norwood
bill, we would like to set the record straight about how employers
would be subject to new lawsuits under the legislation. While the bill
contains a so-called "exception" for some actions by employers, this
exception is quickly retracted by a "special rule" that – for the first
time – directly allows a lawsuit against an employer when the employer
exercises discretionary authority in making a decision on a claim for
benefits.
Many employers do, in fact, make at least some health benefits
decisions. Also, they often act as advocates for their employees to see
that they get the coverage they should expect from their health plan.
Employers who help their employees in this way could find themselves
liable for "exercising discretionary authority."
The Dingell-Norwood bill does not prevent anyone from filing a lawsuit
against an employer – it simply offers employers a possible
defense. Under the legislation, employers could find themselves named in
lawsuits under either state or federal law, forcing them to shoulder the
burden and expense of defending themselves in court against assertions by
trial lawyers that their actions or agreements fell outside of the
"protections" stated in the legislation. Far from exempting employers from
liability, the legislation merely offers employers a defense that they
could attempt to raise when these inevitable lawsuits are initiated.
Contrary to the AMA’s claim that the Dingell-Norwood bill "would
actually protect employers," employers clearly would be liable under the
Dingell-Norwood bill, and the legislation actually expands an employer’s
risk of being subject to a lawsuit. If Dingell-Norwood were to become law,
the only real protection for many employers against the trial lawyers’
assault would be to drop health care coverage for their employees.
For these reasons, we are unalterably opposed to the Dingell-Norwood
patients’ bill of rights, and we strongly urge you not to support this
harmful legislation.
Sincerely,
The Business Roundtable National Federation of Independent
Business U.S. Chamber of Commerce National Association of
Wholesaler-Distributors National Restaurant Association National
Retail Federation Association of Private Pension and Welfare
Plans National Association of Manufacturers Printing Industries of
America International Mass Retail Association Food Distributors
International Food Marketing Institute National Employee Benefits
Institute
|