By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - With a showdown vote looming in the House of Representatives, the Bush administration on Wednesday will step up pressure on key lawmakers to compromise on a far-reaching patients' bill of rights.

Sources said President George W. Bush was expected to meet at the White House with Republican Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia, one of the legislation's chief sponsors, in hope of striking a deal that he can sign into law.

They have narrowed their differences in recent days. Norwood and his Democratic allies have agreed, for example, to curb lawsuits against large U.S. employers, a concession sought by the administration and business.

But they have yet to reach a broad compromise on liability, the cornerstone of legislation that would expand the rights of patients to sue health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and insurance companies over treatment decisions that result in injury or death.

NEGOTIATIONS RUN LATE

Norwood and his allies, however, made clear that the remaining disputes over liability were contentious, and described negotiations, which stretched late into the night on Tuesday, as "tough."

"I'm an optimistic kind of fellow, even when it's not sensible," Norwood said during a break in the talks. But he added: "We need to get that resolved and we need to get it resolved now."

House Republican leaders held out hope that Bush would strike a compromise with Norwood and at least some of his Republican allies, but were skeptical Democrats would go along. Norwood is under increasing pressure from Republicans to abandon the Democrats and strike a deal on his own.

Even though the outcome of the negotiations with Norwood was uncertain, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, told the dentist-turned-congressman he would schedule a vote on patients' rights for Thursday. The Senate passed a similar measure in June despite Bush's veto threat.

SOME MOVEMENT REPORTED

Fleischer's upbeat assessment followed marathon negotiations and personal appeals by Bush for a compromise. The president met with Norwood last week and has pressed him several times by telephone to strike a deal. Bush urged the congressman on Tuesday to "shake the hand of accommodation that I have put out."

Saying they were eager to settle their differences, supporters of the patients' rights bill have endorsed a White House-backed plan to protect large employers who administer their own health plans from lawsuits in state court, where juries are more likely to return big verdicts. Instead, these cases would be sent to federal court. Wal-Mart Stores and other big companies could benefit from the deal.

"SIGNIFICANT STEP"

"We're making a very significant step toward the White House on a major issue of contention," said Republican Rep. Greg Ganske of Iowa, a key sponsor of the House bill.

"This seems to respond to the principal concerns of the president to make sure that employers will not be adversely impacted," said Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who sponsored the Senate-passed patients' bill.

In his veto threat, Bush had charged that legislation in the House and the Senate would expose employers to frivolous lawsuits and thereby drive up the cost of health care and force more Americans into the ranks of the uninsured.

But Ganske, Kennedy and other patients' rights advocates balked at a broader White House compromise that would impose federal standards on lawsuits against HMOs and insurers in state courts. They said the proposal would limit the remedies available to patients and preempt laws in states that have enacted their own patient protections.

In addition, the bill's sponsors and the White House have yet to settle their differences over the amount patients could win in court awards, though both sides indicated that they were somewhat flexible.

Norwood's bill would let patients win jury awards of up to $5 million in federal court and unlimited damages in state court. The alternative patients' bill of rights backed by Bush would cap noneconomic damages in federal court at $500,000 and let patients sue in state court only if an HMO failed to abide by the decisions of a medical review board.