Sponsor predicts patients' bill of rights to pass Senate

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The sponsor of a version of the patients' bill of rights favored by Democratic leaders predicted Sunday that the measure will pass the Senate when it comes up this week, setting up a possible veto confrontation with the White House.

"We will have the votes to get our bill through the Senate," said Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, on ABC's "This Week." "We believe we will have the votes to get our bill through the House and put it on the president's desk."

President George W. Bush has vowed to veto the version of the bill being pushed by Democratic leaders, which allows patients denied coverage by the HMOs to sue for damages in state courts. A version favored by Bush and most Republicans would limit lawsuit damages and restrict suits to federal court.

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said Republicans would head into this week's debate seeking a compromise that could be acceptable to the White House. He said a filibuster to block the bill "is not our intent at the beginning."

"There will be amendments offered. And, you know, perhaps it could be corrected enough that it could pass. Perhaps it will even pass on a broad, bipartisan basis," he said on CBS' "Face The Nation." "We need to find common ground, not a place to fight."

However, Lott said if changes aren't made, he believes Bush "should be prepared to veto a bad bill."

The version of the bill favored by Democratic leaders is sponsored by Edwards and Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, and John McCain, R-Arizona. The version of the bill favored by Lott, Bush and most Republicans is sponsored by Sens. Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, and John Breaux, D-Louisiana.

The most serious differences between the bills surround the recourse patients have if they are denied coverage by their HMO and are harmed by delays in treatment.

The Kennedy-Edwards-McCain bill allows patients to go into either state or federal court and seek economic damages (for things such as lost wages and medical bills), as well as damages for pain and suffering, and punitive damages against the HMO. The amount of money people could receive in court would vary depending on damage limits in state law.

The Frist-Breaux bill would allow patients to sue their HMOs. But suits would have to be in federal court, pain and suffering damages would be limited to $500,000, and punitive damages would not be allowed.

Supporters of limits on punitive damages and damages for pain and suffering insist that, without them, health insurance premiums will rise, benefiting trial lawyers at the expense of patients nationwide.

"It means that working people aren't going to be able to afford health insurance," Frist said on This Week|. "It's going to increase the ranks on the uninsured."

However, Lott said he would be "willing to look at" allowing suits in state courts.

"One of our concerns, of course, is a lot of the state courts are controlled by the plaintiffs' bar," he said. "On the other hand, I can see circumstances where being able to go state court would be acceptable."

Edwards pointed to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office that his bill will increase health insurance premiums 4 percent, as opposed to 3 percent under Frist's bill. "For that kind of marginal cost, we think the American people -- employers and employees -- will think this is a good buy," he said.