Insurers should honor health plan contracts
Pennsylvanians are increasingly finding the health care policies they sign up for are falling short. Health plans are changing the cost and availability of care that is marketed and sold during open enrollment — even after consumers are locked into their annual plans.
For commercially insured Pennsylvanians, especially those managing chronic conditions, the effects of these midyear changes can be devastating. Reducing or eliminating coverage for an effective treatment can cause patients to lose control of their condition and increase ER visits and avoidable hospitalizations.
Thankfully, legislation in Pennsylvania would help guarantee consumers get the health coverage they purchased.
House Bill 2113 would prohibit commercial health insurers from making coverage changes during the policy year that deny or increase the cost of a treatment, service or prescription a patient is already receiving.
While HB 2113 restricts coverage reductions, it preserves the flexibility for insurers to utilize generics and remove treatments and services deemed unsafe by the FDA.
If patients are locked into their policy for the year, the benefits they rely on should be, too.
Any alteration to a treatment plan could lead to unforeseen medical complications. Each year, nonadherence to treatment regimens contributes direct costs of $100 billion to the U.S. health care system. The only person altering a patient’s treatment should be a physician; it’s only commonsense that insurers and pharmacy benefit managers shouldn’t be, especially during the policy year.
People with chronic conditions like liver disease, for example, who suffer from serious complications, including cirrhosis, abdominal pain and chronic fatigue, can experience health crises when the insurance coverage they rely on disappears.
When insurers make treatment changes, it’s not about their health — it’s about saving money. But these treatment changes often increase overall health care costs for patients and the state.
People should not worry about losing their health or independence because their carefully selected health plans abruptly change. But unless House Bill 2113 passes, Pennsylvanians will continue to worry if they’ll get the coverage they signed up for.
Our legislators have an opportunity to address a serious issue that’s impacting our neighbors right now. They should do the right thing and support this legislation and require that health insurance providers honor their contracts with Pennsylvanians. SUZANNA MASARTIS
Executive Director Community Liver Alliance
South Side through Christ alone.
We are offering not “opinions,” as Mr. Pfeifer states, but simply conveying our belief in the very words of Jesus himself — which comprised the whole of Mr. Giuliani’s “defense.” If Mr. Pfeifer doesn’t give them credence, but instead advocates “keeping God in our hearts” as way to heaven, I must ask, “In which ‘god’ do you then believe?” Because it cannot, without belying Christ’s words, be the God of the Bible.
Further, I see no hypocrisy in Mr. Giuliani’s letter, as he correctly states than no man can judge another’s heart. Thoughtful, practicing Christians never claim to be better than others as Mr. Pfeifer claims, but acknowledge that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). And rather than “howling” our faith into the faces of others, we are humbly and earnestly trying to make the “narrow road that leads to life” (Matthew 7:14) as crowded as possible — despite Jesus’ own words that “only a few find it.” To us, the sharing of our faith in an appropriate manner is an act of love that has consequences of the highest magnitude — eternal ones. BEV COLLIER Sheraden
AR-15 assault rifles were responsible for 17 deaths in Parkland and most recently four deaths in Nashville before the shooter was courageously disarmed, preventing greater loss of life. These are only the most recent of many tragedies visited on the innocent by an assault rifle.
From the Nov. 21, 2016, issue of Rolling Stone magazine: “All-American Killer: How the AR-15 Became Mass Shooters’ Weapon of Choice”:
“The AR-15 assault rifle was engineered to create what one of its designers called ‘maximum wound effect.’ Its tiny bullets — needle-nosed and weighing less than 4 grams — travel nearly three times the speed of sound. As the bullet strikes the body, the payload of kinetic energy rips open a cavity inside the flesh – essentially inert space – which collapses back on itself, destroying inelastic tissue, including nerves, blood vessels and vital organs. ‘It’s a perfect killing machine,’ says Dr. Peter Rhee, a leading trauma surgeon and retired captain with 24 years of active-duty
We welcome your opinion
service in the Navy.”
They are military weapons of war that are toys for most and the weapon of choice for a very dangerous few. Yet some consider the ownership of these weapons a right, including letter writer David Smyth (April 24, “Dick’s — So Sad”). He reasons that people are the gun violence problem, not the availability of weapons, and Dick’s Sporting Goods was “cowardly” for removing assault weapons from its inventory.
There is a direct correlation, however, between the number of gun deaths and guns’ availability. The U.S is a world leader in both categories. Most firearm owners probably welcome measures that would control and monitor firearm access, rather than be confrontational like Mr. Smyth. Steps that can be taken to reasonably restrict access to deadly weapons include strengthening background checks and restricting guns in schools.
Access to motor vehicles is controlled by licensing. Why not license the ownership of firearms, especially deadly assault rifles? CHARLIE COOK Collier
Now that the RAND study of the State System of Higher Education has been completed (April 26, “College Report Calls for Change”), perhaps it is a good time for an independent RAND study to reduce the ranks of our overly numerous, little productive state legislators.
That would be a very interesting report! ROBERT MCDONALD
Greensburg