How would I go about finding out who in Congress in the late 80s or early 90s,

[The Backlash Cometh]

voted in favor of giving HMOs the right to commit malpractice?

HMOs were given immunity from liability back then and if you have any information to why it happened, and who in Congress supported it, I would appreciate it.

[MADem]

1. Find out what bill you are looking for and look it up on THOMAS.

Go by bill number. Helps if you know which Congress, too.

Start at THOMAS, that's my advice.

[salvorhardin]

2. It goes back farther than that

The problem actually stems from the 1974 ERISA law (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). ERISA is one of those laws with good intentions but as usual the devil is in the details. Here's some more info from a 1998 NY Times article...

Hands Tied, Judges Rue Law That Limits H.M.O. Liability
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: July 11, 1998

Federal judges around the country, frustrated by cases in which patients denied medical benefits have no right to sue, are urging Congress to consider changes in a 1974 law that protects insurance companies and health maintenance organizations against legal attacks.

In their decisions, the judges do not offer detailed solutions of the type being pushed in Congress by Democrats and some Republicans. But they say their hands are tied by the 1974 law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. And they often lament the results, saying the law has not kept pace with changes in health care and the workplace.

The law, known as Erisa, was adopted mainly because of Congressional concern that corrupt, incompetent pension managers were looting or squandering the money entrusted to them. The law, which also governs health plans covering 125 million Americans, sets stringent standards of conduct for the people who run such plans, but severely limits the remedies available to workers.

In a lawsuit challenging the denial of benefits, a person in an employer-sponsored health plan may recover the benefits in question and can get an injunction clarifying the right to future benefits. But judges have repeatedly held that the law does not allow compensation for lost wages, death or disability, pain and suffering, emotional distress or other harm that a patient suffers as a result of the improper denial of care.
More: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900EFD91431F932A25754C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Do they have any idea how many people's lives are destroyed because

of this?

Do HMOs still have this immunity? People need to understand this before deciding to join one.

[salvorhardin]

4. To answer your questions in order

I don't think they care (or don't think it's that big of a problem) and yes.

ERISA is one of those workhorse pieces of legislation that is often amended. For instance, I believe there was a bill up before Congress just recently that sought to amend ERISA to provide more protections for private entrepreneurs.

On edit... I just searched http://thomas.loc.gov and there were in fact two bills seeking to amend ERISA this past year.

HR 241: To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with small businesses with respect to medical care for their employees
http://tinyurl.com/yp44gj

H. R. 4222: To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and title XXII of the Public Health Service Act to extend COBRA benefits for certain TAA-eligible individuals and PBGC recipients.
http://tinyurl.com/ys78j6

On further edit, an excerpt from the book Making a Killing: HMOs and the Threat to Your Health claims that a 1987 Supreme Court decision is to blame for overly broad immunity being extended to HMOs:

In 1987, creative insurance-industry lawyers convinced a majority of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 or ERISA put the industry above state common law — under which damages are available to injured consumers.2 How did they convince the highest court in the land? Company lawyers argued that the corporation was not technically in the business of insurance but merely an administrator of employee benefits. This meant that it could not be held accountable under state laws, but was subject to ERISA’s federal scheme, which provides little remedy, as discussed in more detail below.

The Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux case did not involve an HMO, but rather a disability insurer. But as managed care became ascendant, the precedent stuck.

If a patient who is denied doctor-recommended care by his HMO tries to file a case in state court, where damages are available under state common law, HMO lawyers will have the case "removed" to federal court under ERISA's rules. HMOs or insurers that lose the federal ERISA grievance only pay the cost of the procedure or benefit they denied in the first place, no other damages or penalties. Thus there is no financial incentive for the HMO to provide timely treatment. And that is the good news. The bad news is that companies are obligated to provide the cost of the benefit only when the patient survives long enough to receive it. If the patient dies before receiving the treatment, the insurer or HMO pays nothing. Because there is no meaningful penalty for denying medically necessary treatment, there is no incentive to approve costly care. ...

For this reason, even conservative judges have condemned ERISA's injustice and pleaded for Congress to clarify accountability for HMOs.
More: http://www.makingakilling.org/chapter5.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Wow. This is worse than I suspected.

You talk about HMOs having immunity for denying a patient doctor-recommended care. Does the physician also get immunity for committing malpractice on an HMO patient? If a physician prescribes the wrong medication to an HMO patient, for example, do they also get immunity? When I looked into this back in the 90s, I got the impression that they did.