Letters to the Editor is a periodic feature. We welcome all comments and will publish a selection. We edit for length and clarity and require full names.
— Karin Wiberg, Raleigh, North Carolina
I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the work you do that exposes the utter brokenness of America’s health system (“Diagnosis: Debt: How to Get Rid of Medical Debt — Or Avoid It in the First Place,” July 1). You are helping to fix it!
— Ruth Worley, Athens, Ohio
— Bayeté Ross Smith, Harlem, New York
Patients Left Holding the Bag
Your “Diagnosis: Debt” articles are interesting and serve as further examples of how the health care industry is set up for the health care system and not the people who use it.
In the USA, medical debt should not be an issue, but we don’t teach people how to save or understand how to navigate the system. I am a nurse blogger/advocate and see the repercussions of what people go through who have inadequate insurance and lack savings or the ability to understand what is happening to them when they are thrust into the complex health care system. But, in reality, none of us really think about our health or the health care system till we are in the middle of a crisis. If we are honest, none of us are really prepared for a catastrophic event, and this is what we need to work on going further through education and advocacy.
I will continue to educate the public in my small way so people can understand their role in our health care system so they are prepared for a medical event and know that they can use their voice to speak up and advocate for themselves.
— Anne Llewellyn, Plantation, Florida
— Bob Beddingfield, Houston
We visited Portland, Oregon, a year ago for a vacation and we will never go back: stores that don’t give baskets because people use them to steal. Stores that put poles on carts to keep people from racing out of the store with them full of merchandise. Closed storefronts. Homeless people everywhere (“Sobering Lessons in Untying the Knot of a Homeless Crisis,” June 21).
It was like a Third World country. I’m not a Republican, very far from it, but accepting the idea that anyone who wants can live on the streets, dump their trash, and get subsidized by the city cannot end well. And this problem is not limited to Portland. San Francisco is in a very similar situation with crime, drug abuse, and homelessness.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Throwing money at the problem and then ignoring the continuing unresolved problem hasn’t worked and, I think, never will.
The idea that a city can host an unlimited number of drug and alcohol addicts at public expense won’t work.
The idea that shoplifting, car break-ins, robberies, etc. are allowed, not arrested, not prosecuted, not punished can never work out well.
And people wonder why the Democrats are in such deep, deep trouble in spite of the horrible ideas the Republicans promote.
This will not end well.
— David Alexander, Palo Alto, California
— Ben Brown Jr., Beaverton, Oregon
On Wheelchair Repairs, Steering Clear of Error
As the CEO of National Seating & Mobility (NSM), I applaud the work of KHN in providing in-depth reporting about important issues in health care, including the complex rehabilitation technology (CRT) industry.
However, the recent article “Despite a First-Ever ‘Right-to-Repair’ Law, There’s No Easy Fix for Wheelchair Users” (June 2) presented several inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and errors in its characterization of NSM and our work.
The article stated that NSM and other CRT providers have limited their investments in service and repair to increase profits. NSM leadership has continuously invested in our service and repair business, including establishing a career path and certification program to professionalize the service technician role, improving onboarding and ongoing training programs, reorganizing our funding team to introduce repair-specific funding specialists to better assist clients in the repair process, investing in market analysis on competitive wages that resulted in a 15%-20% hourly pay increase for technicians, and more. In 2022, NSM has almost 500 service technicians on staff, which is 22% more technicians per count of client-delivered orders versus 2019. Our investment in service and repair is long-standing and will continue.
The article also suggested that Medicare’s use of competitive bidding favors large companies, often at the expense of quality and customer service. NSM was not part of the previous bidding session for durable medical equipment (DME) to establish current rates and was not awarded any Medicare contracts as a result. Most of the products we provide are considered CRT and are exempt from the competitive bid process and pricing. Due to section 16005 of the 21st Century Cures Act and House Bill H.R. 1865, product codes that can be used for CRT or basic DME are paid at the normal rate for CRT instead of competitive pricing.
Finally, the article makes false assumptions about our company: that we keep a limited inventory of parts, and we have little incentive to hire technicians or pay for training because we lose money with repairs.
Each mobility solution — and therefore each repair—is highly customized to a client’s needs. This customization means parts that are replaced less frequently across our client population aren’t likely to be stocked versus those parts that are frequently replaced. The current global supply chain disruption has also affected our inventory; the amount of stock we have on hand is entirely dependent upon availability. Additionally, the labor shortage our country is experiencing has created a challenge across all industries, ours included.
Repair reimbursement is a loss-leader for the CRT industry, exacerbated recently due to inflation in the supply chain and labor markets. While other companies are forced to turn down repairs due to these challenges, NSM continues to provide repairs because it is the right thing to do.
NSM is a customer service business, earning our business in every client interaction. We recognize improvements are needed, and we are committed to investing in advocacy, programs, and collaborative industry efforts to lead our industry in a new direction to improve the lives of those we serve.
— Bill Mixon, CEO of National Seating & Mobility, Franklin, Tennessee
— W. Ron Adams, Erlanger, Kentucky
— Hayley Tsukayama, San Francisco
Clearing the Air on Vaping vs. Smoking
I just listened to your piece on the FDA banning Juul (“KHN’s ‘What the Health?’: The FDA Goes After Nicotine,” June 23). One of your panelists mentioned she’d read (actually, she said she’d read only the headline) about diacetyl (she didn’t want to even try to pronounce this) and popcorn lung.
I believe it is irresponsible for so-called scientific experts to comment on things they haven’t read properly and things they clearly have no knowledge about. Diacetyl is present in cigarette smoke in concentrations hundreds of times higher than in vape products and yet there hasn’t been a single case of popcorn lung attributed to smoking. Anything to do with the toxicity of a chemical present must surely make reference to the concentrations, putting it in context. The fact that a chemical is detectable obviously doesn’t mean that it’s harmful in the concentrations present.
There is a terrible misunderstanding among consumers and indeed health care professionals regarding the relative harms of vaping vs. smoking — given that the vast majority of vapers are ex- or current cigarette smokers, this is the relevant point.
I suggest that the scientific credibility of your program is compromised by such sloppy and inaccurate commentary.
— Mark Dickinson, Twickenham, Middlesex, United Kingdom
— Dave Gragg, Republic, Missouri
Shoring Up Rural Care
Since 2010, 138 rural hospitals have closed, leaving many communities without access to health care. In rural areas, this can create a domino effect of other hardships — a hospital often serves as the largest employer, and when these facilities shut down, the hardware store or restaurants often face similar fates. Put simply, when a rural hospital shutters, it becomes harder for the town itself to survive (“Patients for Profit: Buy and Bust: When Private Equity Comes for Rural Hospitals,” June 15).
Then there is the most critical aspect: Without hospitals, rural Americans lose timely access to lifesaving medical care. On average, the distance between a rural hospital and the closest facility with 100 or more acute care beds is 28.9 miles. Preserving access to care in our rural communities and ensuring hospitals remain the cornerstone of the economy is essential. This is why addressing the hospital closure crisis must be a top priority in Congress.
To determine what needs to be done, it can be helpful to examine the cause of the crisis. Multiple factors have contributed to the high number of rural hospital closures over the past decade, with two major factors being slim or negative hospital operating margins and workforce shortages. The covid-19 pandemic has further strained the health care industry, leading to increased levels of provider burnout and perpetuating the workforce shortage.
On top of this, rural providers continue to feel the strain of Medicare sequestration, which reduces eligible payments to rural hospitals from Medicare by 2%. Relief from Medicare sequestration during the pandemic expired on April 1, contributing to the financial burdens rural hospitals already face. With many rural hospitals already operating on negative margins, these decreased reimbursements could be disastrous.
Further, due to recent statutory changes, provider-based rural health clinics affiliated with small rural hospitals are not eligible for cost-based reimbursement as they historically were. Unless Congress addresses this shortcoming, it may not be financially feasible for small rural hospitals to provide primary care in these settings, and care gaps in rural communities may widen.
Reps. Sam Graves, a Republican from Missouri, and Jared Huffman, a Democrat from California, worked together to introduce the Save America’s Rural Hospital Act. This legislation will help rural health care providers keep their doors open and ensure rural communities have access to the care they need and deserve.
For example, it will permanently eliminate Medicare sequestration for rural hospitals, allowing these facilities to be reimbursed for the entirety of their eligible cost. It will make permanent increased Medicare payments for ground ambulance services in rural and super rural areas. Further, this bill will reauthorize the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program to provide new grants to help eligible rural providers transition to new models and evolve to meet community needs in their changing health care environments.
To address potential primary care shortages, it will also create a voluntary quality measure reporting program for provider-based rural health clinics. If these facilities choose to participate, they will receive increased reimbursement in exchange.
Health care access is critical to preserving the rural way of life for more than 60 million rural Americans. This legislation must be considered to ensure stability in our communities, which will ultimately benefit the country as a whole.
— Alan Morgan, CEO of NRHA, Kansas City, Missouri
— Whitney Zahnd, Iowa City, Iowa
A Pitch for Integrated Behavioral Health
I am a clinical psychologist who works at a large, safety-net academic health center in Colorado. I am writing about your recent article “Patients Seek Mental Health Care From Their Doctor but Find Health Plans Standing in the Way” (June 8). I appreciate the focus of this article on some of the barriers patients face in trying to access mental health care in the U.S. However, I was a little concerned that your article did not mention the rapidly growing field of integrated behavioral health. Although I understand that not all primary care providers’ offices employ an integrated behavioral health clinician, the numbers are growing quickly across the country. For example, in the hospital where I work, there is at least one IBH clinician in every community primary care center, and in most of the specialty clinics (e.g. oncology, OB-GYN) as well.
While I think PCPs are certainly able to dispense basic-level mental health advice (e.g., abdominal breathing exercises for anxiety), I don’t think the answer is to turn over mental health care to medical professionals, any more than I believe it would be a good idea to turn over a patient’s diabetes management to a psychologist, even if that psychologist had some basic training in how to treat diabetes. Instead, I believe it is in patients’ best interests to continue to advocate and nurture a team-based approach that includes both medical and mental health specialists within the same clinic.
— Trina Seefeldt, Denver
— Dr. Andrea DeSantis, Charlotte, North Carolina
In Defense of Free Clinics
I was reading with interest — and then dismay — at your article published June 23 on the Hispanic insurance gap (“Trump’s Legacy Looms Large as Colorado Aims to Close the Hispanic Insurance Gap”). In the opening paragraphs, you reference a man who had symptoms that “free clinics told him were hemorrhoids but were actually colon cancer.”
In that one phrase, you single-handedly and forcefully implied that free clinics deliver poor care and are not to be trusted. With the next sentence about his tragic death, you solidify that implication.
As a charitable clinic with more than 26 years of serving the uninsured in our community, I take great exception to this careless mischaracterization of a sector that has delivered high-quality care to millions of people who have fallen through the cracks.
Most free and charitable clinics care for people with absolutely no insurance. This can significantly limit the amount of outside testing and diagnostics that can be done with patients, even if they are symptomatic. Up until this year, our clinic had absolutely no option for sending someone to a gastroenterologist for a colonoscopy unless they were willing to pay out-of-pocket — upward of $5,000. We have to regularly tell people that we do not have any good options for them because we cannot access certain specialists or tests. Do they need it? Yes. Can we provide it to them? No. Does this incredible inequity and frustration with the health care system that prevents our patients from getting the advanced care they need weigh on us every day? Absolutely.
Free and charitable clinics are not part of the problem. They are part of the solution. And the broad generalization you made impacts how the public perceives this incredibly important piece of the health care sector.
For more information on free and charitable clinics, I invite readers to learn about the National Association of Free and Charitable Clinics at https://nafcclinics.org/.
— Suzanne Hoban, executive director of Family Health Partnership Clinic, Crystal Lake, Illinois