In a solid 59-36 vote, the U.S. Senate decided Friday to pass the latest form of the long-debated patients" bill of rights. While the bill currently awaiting consideration by the House would make some necessary changes to the U.S. health care system, legislators should not consider it a miracle cure passing it would be a small step forward in a seriously flawed system.

Among the most disputed facets of the bill in the Senate was the question of whether or not patients should be able to sue their Health Maintenance Organizations over benefits. In the end, senators decided to allow this. Under the bill, patients can take their HMOs to state court over coverage denials if they have medical evidence that said denials negatively affected their health. In addition, most patients could sue in federal courts over contractual and other non-medical issues.

The majority then answered the minority"s concerns that the measure would flood the courts with frivolous lawsuits, thus driving up insurance premiums concerns also voiced by President Bush by voting unanimously to require patients to exhaust all possible avenues of appeal before attempting to sue. All in all, allowing such lawsuits would be a positive change. HMOs, like individual doctors, should be held responsible for decisions that affect patients" health and well-being. If they act negligently, they should be ready to accept the consequences and change their behavior in the future.

Another commendable change to the status quo proposed in the bill would guarantee patients medical care in the nearest hospital whether or not it was affiliated with their HMO. This move would be a welcome change for the many HMO patients currently forced to travel significant distances to hospitals officially tied to their insurance plans.

Under the current system, many doctors are not supposed to inform their patients of any treatments not covered by their HMOs. Should the patients" bill of rights be passed, doctors would be permitted to discuss all possible forms of treatment even those not covered by their patients" health plans thus enabling patients to make well-informed decisions about their health.

The patients" bill of rights would also guarantee all insured patients access to emergency treatments and certain medical specialists. For instance, women would be able to see gynecologists of their choice and parents could choose their childen"s pediatricians.

All of the aforementioned changes would improve coverage for insured Americans the New York Times estimates that the bill would cover "almost all of the 231 million Americans with health insurance from any source."

This would be no small achievement and for that, the bill"s supporters should be praised. However, legislators should not use the passage of this bill as an excuse to neglect health care reform bills in the near future. They must not forget that more than 42 million Americans do not currently have health insurance and would not reap the benefits of this bill.

The House should pass this bill and President Bush should sign it into law, but with the understanding that the improvements it promises are only postponing the inevitable. Everyone, insured or not, deserves quality, affordable health care those in power should make it a priority to ensure that everyone gets it.