Even though I had some reservations about the Norwood-Dingell patient protection bill, I voted for it last year. I voted for this bill, which passed by a 275-151 margin, because I thought this was a good way to move the reform process forward.

Unfortunately the forward movement has been very, very slow. Nearly 10 months have gone by, and still we don't have a law that can protect millions of Americans enrolled in health care plans. And the problem is not about to go away. Actually, it's getting worse. The quality of care is being sacrificed, and access to essential care is being denied.

Costs are also rising. In 1999, health insurance premiums increased by about seven percent, well above the overall inflation rate.

The effort to produce a good bill has been in the hands of a Conference Committee of House and Senate members for most of this year.

It was against that background that 29 members of the House, including me, wrote Congressman Tom Bliley of Virginia, vice-chairman of the committee. We urged him to seek a responsible compromise that will benefit all Americans. Broadly, a good bill should ensure that folks are not denied needed care, but it should NOT produce a flood of unnecessary lawsuits that enrich lawyers without helping patients. Here are some specifics of what I would like to see in any compromise bill:

• HMO and health plan accountability: If a plan denies treatment or coverage to a patient and that decision results in serious injury or death, the responsible organization should be subject to a lawsuit for damages. But a business that merely offers coverage to its employees through the plan but has no role in the decision to deny, should NOT be subject to suit. It's not fair or right to force any business to pay for a decision that it had no role in making. Any law that allowed such suits would only encourage businesses, particularly smaller ones, simply to drop employee health coverage. That?s the opposite of what we want!!!!!
• The right to appeal decisions: A patient who is denied coverage by a health plan, should have a right to appeal the decision to an impartial board of professionals. Such a panel would have 21 days to act in non-emergencies; 48 hours for emergency care. This feature makes sure patients get help when they need it. We would rather see patients get help than a lawyer.
• Access to care: Patients should have access to quality emergency room care when and where they need it. Also any plan, should be required to provide any necessary specialty care, such obstetrical, gynecological or pediatric treatment. Plans should also be required to cover treatment given in recognized, quality clinical trials.

These are all common sense, reasonable proposals that should be part of any comprehensive solution. Members from both parties in the House and Senate support this broad middle-ground approach. I hope the Conference Committee will soon produce a bill that both the House and Senate can approve and President Clinton will sign.

Time passes. The challenge only grows greater. It's high time we rise to meet this challenge.