Partisan bickering in Washington has prevented the passage of a badly needed "patients' bill of rights" for years. An unexpected agreement reached recently between President Bush and leading Congressional patients' advocate Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.), however, led to the passage of a compromise bill in the House. If the Senate approves the terms of that bill, as it should, the fundamental promise of patient protection legislation can finally be realized.

When we as consumers purchase health insurance (or receive it through our employers), we don't know what type of illnesses might befall us. Consequently, insurers can't tell us in advance what care they will provide. Instead, they promise to provide "medically necessary" care. The issue that divides lawmakers is what recourse a patient should have when he or his doctor requests treatment but the insurer determines it is not medically necessary or appropriate.

All of the key players in the legislative battle now agree that the patient should have a right to "external review" by an independent panel of any treatment request denied by an insurer. A right to external review is not enough, however, unless the insurers have some reason to heed the independent panel's recommendation.

Legislation passed by the Democratic Senate in June would permit aggrieved patients to sue their insurers in state court for pain and suffering caused by an improper denial of necessary care, as well as for punitive damages. But the president has threatened to veto any law that provides such a broad remedy, on the grounds that it would encourage frivolous lawsuits.

Under the Bush-Norwood compromise, aggrieved patients would be permitted to sue their insurers in state court for improper denials of care, but they would be limited by a new federal law capping pain-and-suffering and punitive damages at $1.5 million each. Many Democrats and some Republicans claim that such a provision would deny a meaningful remedy to injured patients.

But the Bush-Norwood compromise reasonably strikes a delicate balance. It is critical that injured patients be permitted to sue insurers who provide too little care because this keeps insurers honest. But it is also sensible to place some limits on recoveries. Otherwise, insurers fearful of astronomical jury verdicts would provide nearly every service their patients request, whether cost-effective or not. The result would likely be higher health insurance costs and more employers deciding they cannot afford to provide coverage to their employees.

It is impossible for anyone to say whether $3 million per injured patient is the "right" amount at which to cap insurer liability. Maybe that number is too high; perhaps it is too low. But the idea of balancing patients' rights to sue with some limits on insurer liability is sound, and after a decade of failed attempts by Congress to enact meaningful patient protection legislation, $3 million is a figure that is certainly close enough.

When House and Senate negotiators meet in conference committee to work out differences between their two bills, the senators should agree to enact the Bush-Norwood compromise and end the legislative deadlock.