Today's Letters: Some fixes for insurance mess

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published September 26, 2007

As an environmental activist, retired general insurance agent, realtor and appraiser, I would like to suggest the following:

The new annual charge for drainage be reviewed in light of the consent order OGC, file 05-2682 to Pasco County from DEP, levying penalties of more than $1,790,000 for numerous instances of noncompliance.

An insurance program be initiated with standard deductible affordable premiums.

Our Legislature and or lending institutions make available a contingency policy to cover the deductible under catastrophic losses.

Our local Realtors develop an environmental committee to enhance the commodity they are selling.

Patrick Raimond,Port Richey

Fasano wrong on sinkhole coverage Sept. 25 letter

Fasano not cause of sinkhole woes

I don't believe state Sen. Mike Fasano has ever said sinkholes don't exist, as the writer of the referenced letter alleges. Rather, Sen. Fasano has frequently saidsinkhole claims, whether fraudulent or unfounded, are the cause for increases in homeowners insurance.

Residents of Pasco and Hernando counties have been the hardest hit when it comes to rising insurance premiums. With sinkhole claims the No. 1 reason for the increases, Fasano and colleagues worked very hard to craft a way for homeowners to continue to afford their insurance coverage. By giving residents the choice of whether or not to carry sinkhole coverage, homeowners insurance has once again become affordable.

The writer seems to have missed that sinkhole attorneys and public adjusters who actively and aggressively market themselves and encourage filing claims are responsible for the insurance crisis. Billboards, newspaper advertisements and door hangers encouraging filing sinkhole claims should be the subject of criticism, not those who are working to rein in the high cost of insurance.

I appreciate Sen. Fasano's efforts and believe he is doing what's right for his constituents.

Ron Haines, Spring Hill

Food inspection process working Sept. 19 letter

Inspection system simply inadequate

Mr. Bill Veach, the newest director of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, in his letter to the editor, brings up some important points about the current restaurant inspection process, but does not state the case correctly.

Contrary to his statements about a disjointed and loosely overseen program, in 1992, the short-lived Office of Restaurant Programs, administered by the Department of Health, was the most effective restaurant inspection program Florida ever had.

That year marked the last year in which inspectors visited restaurants at least twice a year. Since the takeover by the division in 1992, inspectors have failed each year to inspect its restaurants at least twice, the minimum required by state statute.

Mr. Veach also states that the goals of his inspection program are education and awareness. A critical goal should be ensuring that restaurants comply with the laws and rules of the state.

Mr. Veach failed to mention that the overriding goal of a food safety regulatory agency is protecting public health and safety. Promoting public health is certainly important, but preventing illness and injury and protecting the public come first.

Mr. Veach also says the division's restaurant inspections are scientific. If true, then findings or data derived from the findings would be valid indicators of restaurant safety and sanitation.

Repeatedly, the division and the Florida Restaurant Association contend the "snapshot" inspections currently performed do not truly indicate the level of safety or sanitation in restaurants. Thus, they argue, grades based on those findings are invalid. Inspection findings cannot be invalid if the inspection process is scientific; their stance is blatantly contradictory.

The reality is that the division inspections are unreliable indicators of future or past safety, simply because the inspection process is unscientific. Snapshot inspections do not take into consideration an establishment's performance between inspections. If the division wants a scientific inspection method, then measuring safety must be based on an operator's own documented food safety program.

Sadly, the division doesn't require restaurants to have a documented sanitation and safety program. While training employees is mandatory, training managers is not. Managers can simply challenge the certification exam. Training or certification alone, in any case, does not equal an implemented, monitored and documented internal food safety program.

The Florida restaurant industry operates under an archaic system of infrequent sanitation inspections instead of moving to an industry self-control model. Such programs are in place throughout the rest of the food industry but are not mandatory in restaurants. Almost all food producers, processors and manufacturers, and many national chain restaurants, operate a food safety system complete with documentation showing how they comply with sanitation standards over time. Auditors review these records as well as look at the current sanitation conditions and base grades upon those findings. These audits, and grades, are the industry standard and food safety backbone for the rest of the food chain.

Florida has the highest number of reported restaurant associated food-borne illness outbreaks in the United States. While there are possibly other reasons for these numbers, the statistics reveal an unstable public health protection program and conditions that result all too often in contaminated food.

It's time the division addresses the serious defects in its inspection process. While the FDA appreciates many programs in place here, what looks good on paper is simply not good enough in light of the facts. It's time the division stops dancing around its ineffective inspections and lack of funding and starts requiring a more scientific, efficient and effective way of assessing public health and safety. Begin by placing appropriate burden to protect public health and safety where it belongs - on the industry. A change in direction is long overdue.

Roy E. Costa,DeLand

[Last modified September 25, 2007, 20:19:02]