Opinion | Maximize profits at the expense of patients

To the editor:

Patients suffer huge bills as insurers collect rates (front page, April 7):

Chris Hambys research uncovers the harsh truth for patients who receive care from providers outside their insurance network. While most of us try to save on out-of-pocket costs by using in-network healthcare professionals and hospitals, it’s not always possible. And there is no way to determine how much he owes after we receive this attention when it is too late to reconsider based on the costs we have incurred.

So it’s more important than ever that the government quickly implements an essential element of the No Surprises Act: Providers should give patients an upfront explanation of benefits so patients can estimate their financial burden before receiving treatment, in or off the grid .

Health care price transparency is improving, but it’s outrageous that even two years after the No Surprises Act was passed, everyone but the patient knows the price of a procedure or doctor’s visit in advance , leaving patients with an unpleasant surprise.

Patricia Kelmar
Alexandria, Va.
The writer is senior director of health care campaigns for US PIRG.

To the editor:

This is just the latest example of schemes deployed by insurers to maximize profits by reducing reimbursements to doctors and shifting the costs of necessary medical care to patients.

Whether through third-party entities like MultiPlan or using tactics like shrinking provider networks and restrictive prior authorization policies, insurers have a perverse incentive to increase revenue to provide adequate payment for care of quality to patients under the pretext of controlling costs.

More and more patients are being forced to decide whether to forgo treatment because their insurer won’t pay the bill.

Federal and state regulators must re-examine agreements with consulting and analytics firms like MultiPlan, including their conflicts of interest and impact on patient care.

The College of American Pathologists has also encouraged lawmakers to enact stricter network adequacy standards that would require health plans to keep enough doctors under contract in patients’ local area. These requirements would give insurance companies the right incentives to cover services to patients in the interest of keeping their beneficiaries healthy rather than producing healthier bonuses for their own administrators.

Donald Karcher
Washington
The writer is president of the College of American Pathologists.

To the editor:

This infuriating article has many detractors, especially MultiPlan and several large insurers. The underlying problem, however, is the growing role of for-profit, investor-owned companies in the healthcare sector.

When I began studying health care as a PhD student in the early 1970s, most hospitals were non-profits and most health insurers were Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans. There were problems then too, but they pale in comparison to today.

Whenever profit comes into play, it becomes the main objective. And while the profit incentive is supposed to be good because it rewards better service and lower prices, and thus spurs innovation, it is possible to obtain exorbitant profits by other means, as the article demonstrates.

Insurance is supposed to make care affordable for people so they can get it without worrying about whether or not they can afford it. In contrast, the companies in the article are not focused on making care affordable for patients, but on maximizing profits.

It may be wishful thinking, but somehow we have to find a way to make the health sector profitable again.

Stephen M. Davidson
Philadelphia
The writer is professor emeritus in the Health Sector Management Program at Boston University.

To the editor:

Re Could Donald Trump Really Go to Prison?, by Norman L. Eisen (Guest Op-ed Essay, April 21):

After reading the article by Mr. Eisens, the possibility of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Trump came home.

I was a trial lawyer for decades and my appreciation for juries has grown exponentially.

The juries empaneled in this trial are showing courage above and beyond. Many of the usual suspects have fanned the flames of hatred and potential violence through ongoing attacks on certain participants in the trial. Jurors likely know this and yet agreed to sit on this case.

Each jury is a profile of courage. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. They must be protected. Democracy demands nothing less.

David S. Bright
Beverly Hills, California

Black voters want to be wooed by Democrats

To the editor:

Re Black Voters Generation Gap Poses Problem for Biden Camp (front page, April 19):

I am deeply disappointed that this article suggests that some younger African Americans will not vote because we don’t know our civil rights movement history, are uninformed about the issues, or just have the same concerns as other voting blocs. Younger African-Americans are not happy with the Democratic Party because it doesn’t give us specific policies.

Democrats court other groups of voters, and we want to be courted, too. We need Democrats to fight fiercely for reparations for black descendants of American slavery, help close racial wealth and property gaps, provide significant federal funding for HBCUs, and reinvest in our communities.

Don’t treat us like a captured vote block. Our parents and grandparents have personally experienced significant changes due to Democratic policies. Younger generations have not seen the same change.

Believe it or not, there are younger informed African-American voters. We read Essence, Ebony, Blavity and other publications with a significant younger black readership. Reach out to renowned black journalists and academics. Please try to contact us through these channels, not The Breakfast Club, the radio show.

Nicole Nelson
Washington

Better than debates

To the editor:

Re News Outlets Say Candidates Should Debate (Media, April 15):

A group of major news organizations advocating a televised debate issued a joint statement that included this quote: There is simply no substitute for the candidates debating with each other, and before the American people, their visions of the future of our nation.

This statement is obviously hyperbole. It’s better for ratings than for the electorate.

In fact, there are superior methods. When professional organizations hold elections, their candidates prepare short videos. They provide succinct information about their background, why they are running, and how they plan to address important issues facing their constituents.

In addition, candidates provide comprehensive written responses to a series of questions so that voters can evaluate their proposals and have sufficient time to consider them. In the case of the upcoming presidential election, the media should develop a set of questions to answer each, which can then be viewed side by side.

While a televised debate might provide entertainment for the public, its emphasis on spectacle and the usual ad hominem attacks are not valid means of deciding who would be best suited to govern. For virtuoso stage performances, there’s Broadway.

Lawrence Balter
New York
The writer is professor emeritus of applied psychology at New York University.