In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that patients cannot sue managed care companies in state court whose refusal to pay for or provide doctor-recommended treatment resulted in the death or injury of a patient.  This decision revokes the laws that ten states have passed allowing patients to sue in state court in such cases.  Furthermore, the Court’s decision relegates the physician’s medical and professional opinion to an administrative decision based on the health insurance company’s bottom line.   

Three years ago, the Congress had the opportunity to settle this matter and do what is right for patient care and accountability.  Unfortunately, partisan politics entered the debate and profits continued to be placed above patient care.   

Fortunately, those of us in Congress who are greatly concerned about the Court’s decision are taking action.  This week, I signed on as a co-sponsor to H.R. 4628, a bipartisan patients’ rights bill that passed in the U.S. Senate in 2001.  Because the Court did not uphold the right of states to protect the health care of their residents, federal action is again needed.   

This legislation ensures that patients have access to basic and standard care, the ability to see their own doctor, the ability for a doctor to make decisions based on sound medical principles, the right to a fair, independent external review process if an HMO denies a patient’s access to necessary care, and the right for patients to hold their health plan accountable if their HMO’s negligent medical decision has resulted in injury or harm.  

Passing a Patients’ Bill of Rights is simply an issue of one’s right to seek justice. If a patient is harmed by a negligent act caused by an HMO, he or she deserves the right to hold their HMO accountable.  

Our judicial system exists to defend those who are innocent, punish those who cause harm, and provide adequate remedies to those who are civilly wronged. As your United States Representative, I will not stop fighting   until your rights as patients are adequately protected.   

Ross’s legislation, “The American Aquaculture and Fishery Resources Protection Act ,” (HR 3320) would grant the same depredation permit authority for migratory birds to the USDA’s Wildlife Services that is currently held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Granting this duplicate permit authority would allow both agencies the ability to exercise a greater degree of population control over migratory birds, which would ultimately increase the preservation of the fish population. 

“Because this great country has become more environmentally responsible and has reduced the use of persistent chemical pesticides, the reproductive success of many species of fish eating birds at the top of the food chain has skyrocketed,” said Ross. “These birds have done what they do well – eat fish – which has increased depredation at fish farms and sporting fish lakes.”  

During his testimony, Ross noted that H.R. 3320 will not diminish the authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, nor will it violate or weaken the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, among other things.  

“My bill will not take any migratory bird management authority away from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,” said Ross. “Rather, it will alleviate the confusing dilemma that currently surrounds migratory bird depredation permits.”  

Below are additional excerpts of Ross’s testimony that he gave to the House Committee on Resource’s Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises:  

“There is still some question as to whether it is legal for USDA Wildlife Services’ biologists, who, until 1986, were employed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and who have the same technical training as biologists in the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to issue depredation permits and take migratory birds without a permit or the consent of any other agency.  For several years, a federal court held that federal agencies are not required to obtain migratory bird permits from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  However, another court decision reversed the previous decision.  

“H.R. 3320 will clarify this most perplexing dilemma by simply granting duplicate authority to USDA Wildlife Services’ biologists that is presently held by employees of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  It is important to understand that H.R. 3320 will not diminish the authority of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service….  

 “As has been noted throughout the history of this proposed legislation, it is not practical for USDA Wildlife Services to be asked to serve the American people in solving depredations by migratory birds without the authorities granted by H.R. 3320.  For too long, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has attempted to shift the “hot potato” of fish eating migratory bird management to USDA Wildlife Services and state fish and wildlife management agencies while retaining control which would guarantee failure of all management efforts.  

“The two cormorant depredation orders, 50 CFR. 21.47 and 50 CFR 21.48 are perfect examples of this.  While these orders appear to liberalize fish eating bird management restrictions, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has publicly stated that these orders are specifically aimed at addressing localized problems.  Cormorant populations have continued to increase at a rate that exceeds depredation losses.  Also, these orders have extensive restrictions, monitoring, and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service oversight included to ensure that essential regional population reduction will not be possible.  This delaying tactic has been successfully used by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for many years and borders on dereliction of duty and certainly does not qualify as migratory bird management.  

“USDA Wildlife Services is willing to conduct this management and, in fact, has had the personnel on the ground, which for many years have been providing assistance to the citizens of the U.S. in addressing migratory bird depredation problems.  It simply makes good sense to grant this agency the needed authorities which will be provided by H.R. 3320.”  

For a full text of the Congressman’s testimony, please contact 202.225.0753.