Today President Bush gave us his guidelines for a Bipartisan Patients’ Bill of Rights. At first glance they don’t appear to be too much different than his principles, but on closer inspection some stark, and troublesome, problems appear.

Most troubling is the fact that President Bush’s proposal would roll back important patient protections that many states struggled mightily to enact, and would prevent others from taking effect. This is a dangerous step in the wrong direction that will ultimately do more harm than good.

Additionally, President Bush proposes to lower caps for injuries. I’m curious what cap on damages is adequate compensation for a person’s life, or for that matter their limbs or reproductive organs. Bush would also have cases that should rightfully go before state courts go before a federal court, where they stand in line behind drug dealers waiting for a hearing.

Our premise when drafting the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act was to first do no harm: I’m pleased to note that our bill does not harm anyone. However, it does hold negligent HMO’s accountable for their harmful actions which result in the injury or death of patients. And it properly protects employers who don’t make medical decisions.

President Bush has called time and again for a Bipartisan Patient Protection Bill. I say to him, "We have one, the only one, and it is time for it to get a fair and deserved hearing."