Propositions 214, 216 on HMOs
* You did the voters a disservice urging them to vote against Prop. 214 (editorial, Oct. 22). Listen to yourself: “Managed-care companies are loath†to disclose written criteria for the denial of care. And, “Earlier this year they told the Legislature that such criteria are a ‘trade secret.’ â€
And you buy that?
How can the criteria for denying care recommended by my doctor be a trade secret? What is being traded?
We do not horse-trade each other’s health, and we do not make “trade secrets†out of our profit-making corporations’ invalid reasons for denying care that our doctor recommended. Cost-cutting and efficiency are fine. But in examining our health care and insurance system, we need to begin with values. We must begin with a commitment to each other.
Prop. 214 simply says we should get the health care that we have paid for.
JANE HIRSCH
Pacific Palisades
* Your editorial opposition to Props. 214 and 216 is very unconvincing and contradictory. You correctly review three serious abuses some HMOs are guilty of: “gag rules†that prohibit physicians and nurses from telling patients about treatment options not covered by the patient’s plan; “financial incentives†that reward primary-care physicians for referring only a limited percentage of their patients to expensive specialists; and failure to disclose the criteria for “denial of care.â€
The editorial acknowledges “these problems are legitimate,†but lamely and unpersuasively dismisses the solutions as “fuzzily worded.†You will have to do much better to convince me not to vote yes on both propositions.
LEO NEWMAN
Laguna Hills
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
