"Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act" Hurts Broad Cross Section of U.S. Consumers, Limits Consumer Choice
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Warning the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act (S.2838) hurts U.S. seniors in addition to establishing "a dangerous precedent for the entire U.S. business community by eliminating the reasonable, intelligent use of arbitration agreements," a diverse coalition of senior, caregiver, taxpayer and business advocacy organizations have coalesced to sign a joint letter to U.S. Senators stipulating the need to uphold the right of every consumer to voluntarily arbitrate legal disputes.
Advertisement
The text of the letter is as follows:
Dear Senators Leahy and Specter,
As our collective intent is to protect consumer choice, preserve quality health care, and promote the most efficient, effective use of Americans' tax dollars, we, the undersigned organizations, urge you to oppose The Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act (S. 2838) and other bills that would eliminate or significantly limit the use of arbitration as a viable and voluntary option for resolving legal disputes.
Advertisement
We believe S. 2838 which is being taken up by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would establish a dangerous precedent for the entire U.S. business community by eliminating the reasonable, intelligent use of arbitration agreements.
Specifically, S. 2838 would effectively eliminate the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements by nursing facilities, assisted living communities and all housing service providers nationwide -- even if the patient, resident or their family wishes to enter into such an agreement. The inherent right of every consumer to voluntarily arbitrate disputes should not be restricted.
We also believe that S. 2838 would weaken the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which has been in place for more than 80 years. The FAA appropriately recognizes the strong national interest in disputes being resolved in a forum other than the courts when both parties choose to do so.
Some have asserted that arbitration agreements unfairly require that patients and residents sacrifice legal rights simply to obtain care and services. In fact, courts consistently have invalidated arbitration agreements that were coercive, lacked adequate consumer protections such as disclosure and rescission provisions, and unfair to consumers.
Arbitration also has several advantages over traditional litigation:
-- It is less adversarial and time consuming than traditional litigation;
-- Consumers typically resolve claims more quickly than through the courts, allowing more timely compensation to plaintiffs;
-- In the health care environment, medical evidence can be taken into consideration when resolving disputes;
-- Resources that would otherwise be devoted to expensive litigation can be appropriately directed toward patient and resident care; and
-- In a substantial majority of arbitration cases, claimants receive compensation.
For these and other reasons, we believe arbitration has been shown to result in the just and timely resolution of legal disputes, plays a critical role in protecting the nation's health care system, and is in the best interest of patients, residents, families, and taxpayers. We also believe strongly that within the health sector, providers should continue to be prohibited from requiring patients and residents to agree to arbitration as a condition of admission.
On the basis of protecting sound public policy that benefits consumers and our nation's health care system in many important ways, we ask you to oppose the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act
