It wasn't too long ago that we were told to shop around at different pharmacies to get better prices for our drugs. Now we are being offered discount cards to help us get better prices for our drugs. But we have to shop around to get the best discount card for better prices for our drugs. Sounds like "you can't get there from here" directions.
First of all, we are talking about medications that are prescribed by our physicians for certain and specific conditions of our health. It is unconscionable that anyone should have to shop for medicine. Given even that disturbing notion, to ask seniors to "pick a card" to get the best price for their medicine is to add insult to injury.
Well, even though I may be insulted and injured, I'm not stupid, so I decided to visit the Medicare Web site and check out the prices. Take a look at a couple of choices for clicking on the home page:
"New Drug Price Comparison Information." Just the idea that prices can be compared is ridiculous. Who would pay for the most expensive? Are there "extras" as in buying a car?
"New Publications About The Medicare Approved Drug Discount Cards": There is literature available to explain the drug discount cards? Excuse me? That says it all.
What a shame. By offering discounts, the government is tacitly approving the prices of prescription drugs. The prices should be "assigned" and "approved" by Medicare just as it does with doctor and hospital bills. But, ooh, price control for the pharmaceutical business? Perish the thought.
Instead, let all the old dogs like me try for cost savings by taking what looks like the Medicare version of the FCAT for seniors.
-- Jack Bray, Dunedin
Eliminate the middlemen
Behold the latest health care "reform." Prescription drug cards offered from 40 companies nationwide, and another 33 offering regional coverage, with regulations so confusing that seniors have to attend seminars for explanations.
This maze of bureaucracy is touted as offering seniors "choice," much like the bewildering health insurance plan choices that are available to employers and employees alike. The only "choice" health care consumers want is the freedom to choose their own doctor, and with that doctor make their own health decisions.
In reality, this complicated system is designed only to provide opportunities for middlemen, brokers and insurers to take profits and administrative charges. It doesn't have to be this complicated. A single-payer, nonprofit universal health care system - Medicare for everyone - including a simple prescription drug benefit, saves money by eliminating wasteful middlemen costs. Medicare could negotiate optimum prices nationally and allow seniors to get on with their lives, instead of trying to decipher a purposely and unnecessarily complex payment system.
-- Robert Clark, M.D., Tampa
Plan seems to lack sense of reality
This new drug card system appears to have been developed by someone on drugs or, at least, totally out of touch with reality. Of course, since it came out of Washington, what should we expect?
We're locked in but the prices these providers charge can change weekly. While this might work in a perfect world, haven't we American taxpayers been stiffed enough by big business, President Bush and our so-called congressional representatives?
Oh, by the way, could somebody from Washington also explain how American drug companies can sell prescription drugs to Canada cheaply enough so that we can buy them back from Canada at half the price.
-- David Duff, St. Petersburg
Drug imports are too risky
As a lupus patient, I am writing in opposition to importing prescription drugs from Canada. While it is understandable that some people want lower drug costs, importation isn't the answer.
First and foremost, importation of foreign medications is illegal. The Food and Drug Administration can't regulate this process and is unable to approve such medications. Consumers who purchase medicines from foreign-based Web sites and so-called pharmacies must sign a waiver relieving the organization selling the medication of any and all legal responsibility. If the organization can't verify its own product, doesn't this send up a red flag that these medications are likely to be risky?
Many patients take prescriptions to treat serious medical conditions such as lupus, Alzheimer's, cancer and diabetes. If these patients were to receive the wrong medicine, it could mean the difference between life and death. This is simply not a risk we should be willing to take.
Slowly but surely, those who once stood in support of the Florida Medical Association are rejecting its agenda and tactics. By focusing on the financial benefit of physicians, the FMA is dividing health care providers when it should instead be striving for accessible, affordable, quality health care for patients.
The FMA is working aggressively to limit the scope of practice of nurses, pharmacists and physician assistants. This year, the FMA made it a top priority to block advanced registered nurse practitioners from prescribing controlled substances, as they can do in 44 other states. The losers? Patients in pain who will have to wait longer for relief. The FMA also waged war this year against pharmacists by working to deny them the authorization to immunize adults. The effect? Doctors retain all the power and guard their profits, while patients are denied ready access to a basic health care service.
Why does the FMA's gluttonous agenda revolve around making sure they get the whole pie while denying other health care practitioners even a slice? Shouldn't patient advocacy have a place on doctors' agendas at a time when health care costs are skyrocketing?
Now the FMA has its doctors collecting patient signatures in their offices for a constitutional amendment capping attorneys' fees. Maybe the FMA needs to lay down its swords and get reacquainted with doctors' fundamental mission: patient care.
-- Debra Holtz, CRNA, ARNP, Dunedin
It's not about fairness for patients
Re: Florida doctors seeking fairness for patients, letter, April 30.
Who does the writer (who apparently also writes in behalf of the Pinellas County Medical Association) think he's fooling?
Were doctors seeking fairness for patients when they tried to cap intangible damages in medical negligence suits at $250,000, even in cases of gross negligence and catastrophic damages, such as taking off the wrong leg? Not being satisfied with successfully capping such damages in most all cases to $500,000, and with imposing even more stringent hoops patients must jump through to get their case to a jury, these doctors are now trying to cap attorneys' fees as well - a very blatant effort to further limit these patients' access to the courts. The writer admits as much in his letter by devoting the last half of it to lawyer- and malpractice suit-bashing. We're used to the bashing part, but the writer should acknowledge what it is and not try to hide behind the "seeking fairness for patients" smokescreen.
The day before this letter was printed, your paper reported that the House voted to hide malpractice by creating a new public records exemption to prevent the public from getting the names of any doctor, nurse or other health care worker mentioned in an incident report of a potentially harmful event. The doctors' elected medical lobbyist, Rep. Ed Homan, M.D., was quoted in House votes to hide malpractice (April 29) as saying that no doctor would report such incidents "when those records are open and available for lawsuits."
Was Dr. Homan seeking fairness for patients when he helped pass this legislation that limits their right to know? Even with the protection afforded by the legislation, doctors will rarely report such incidents because they are afraid they will be on the receiving end of reporting if they break their code of silence.
Plainly and simply, doctors are doing everything they can to protect themselves from responsibility for their negligence, and nothing to seek fairness for their patients.
-- John W. Williams, attorney at law, St. Petersburg
Art village in Tampa would fill a need
Re: Bradenton's pocket of art sets example for Tampa, by Mary Jo Melone, April 23.
I am an artist living in the Bradenton Village of the Arts, having moved to Florida about two years ago from California. The village is not only retail gallery spaces. There are plenty of artists quietly "doing their thing" and showing outside of the village galleries. I am one of those. I had an established art career in California and I pulled up stakes because Florida had more to offer in terms of affordability and desirability, plus about one-third of my art sales were coming from Florida through my San Francisco gallery.
Not every artist wants to open a gallery, but every artist does want to be among other artists and form a community. Not only is there a hunger for it, there is a starvation for it. I wrote an article on my experience buying in the village for the national arts magazine Art Calendar (published Oct. 2002), and from that I received contacts from artists all over the country wanting to know more.
If Tampa Bay officials decide to go ahead with their own artist village, they will find people across the country coming to Tampa to participate. Home ownership is beyond the financial ability of many artists, and the opportunity to be "urban pioneers" is a chance many artists would gladly jump on if it meant the opportunity of home ownership. It is good for the community, it stabilizes neighborhoods, it adds a diversity and richness and will become its own tourist destination in time, if that is the goal. The city of Paducah, Ky., has been advertising its own artist concept for several years now, and city officials nationwide are seeing the value of artist communities.
The Bradenton city officials I have dealt with have been extremely helpful and dedicated to the tasks at hand. I hope the city of Tampa does decide to go forward with its project. There will need to be zoning changes for mixed use, and some funds dedicated to basic concerns such as sidewalks, signs and perhaps some financial incentives to get that first wave of urban pioneers. Tampa will find a more than adequate number of artists to participate if they remain committed to the vision.
-- Vick Vercauteren, Bradenton
Indications of bias
Does your paper sponsor an annual competition to see which staff writer can use the term "conservative" the most?
I read Bill Adair's April 15 article titled Spirited Scalia not one to shy away. He used the term "conservative" five times. "Liberal" was used only twice. More interestingly, he referred to the Heritage Foundation as "conservative." However, the much more vitriolic, liberal organization People for the American Way was not identified as "liberal." Nor were "environmentalists and a watchdog group" identified as "liberal."
Do you think, in the face of such obvious bias, a reader should trust your judgment or research?
-- Lawrence P. Marlin, Palm Harbor
Share your opinions
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.
