How Patients' Rights Became a Fight The Norwood amendment gutted our bipartisan legislation, and this is why: First, our original bill started with the premise that a health insurance company should be treated just like any other person or institution in the health profession. That is, if it makes a decision that results in harm to a patient, it should be held accountable for that action. The Norwood amendment creates a whole new category for H.M.O.'s. It gives them special protections that no other industry has � like new federal limits on damages in cases where a patient is hurt by the actions of an H.M.O. Second, the amendment may pre-empt most state laws, so that already existing patients' rights laws in places like Texas, California and New Jersey could be rendered void. And in states where case law has been building in favor of patients' rights, the Norwood amendment would basically kill years of legal progress. Third, the amendment calls for a legal device called "rebuttable presumption." Few people could tell you what this means, but we've figured out that it increases the presumption of innocence for H.M.O.'s, making it harder for a plaintiff to prove liability. The big question for all of us as Americans has to be: Why is this happening? Why did the White House oppose a real patients' bill of rights at every turn, even when a majority of Americans support one, and even when a coalition of Republicans and Democrats in both houses of Congress had united behind one? And why are we sitting here today without a law that holds health insurance companies accountable, when the health and livelihood of millions of Americans depend on such a law? http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/01/opinion/01BERR.html