Forcing people to change their medication could lead to higher health care and human costs.
Why advocacy groups care about rule changes
On the April 25 Opinion Exchange page, Paul John Scott delivered another commentary against access to medications and against “illness awareness groups.” It’s important to note that more than 9 million people are on Medicare not because of their age but due to serious health conditions such as a mental illness, HIV/AIDS or multiple sclerosis. For these and other conditions, medication is one part of effective treatment.
In arguing for limiting the number of medications, Mr. Scott states that there is no evidence that one medication, particularly with antidepressants or antipsychotics, works better than another. But what he fails to point out is that because it takes more than two years for adults with disabilities to get on Medicare, these individuals are not newly diagnosed and have already been through a trial-and-error process to find the medication that works best for them. You cannot confuse efficacy as a class with efficacy for an individual. One single antidepressant, for example, will not work for everyone with depression. People respond differently to medications and experience different side effects.
Part D Medicare plans already have cost-saving strategies at their fingertips. They can use step therapy and prior authorization for someone starting on a protected-class drug. Generic medications are also available and are used. Forcing people to change their medication could lead to destabilization and higher health care and human costs.
Anyone who has ever bothered to learn more about the various organizations that advocate for people with serious illnesses knows that our advocacy goes well beyond medications. Research, evidence-based practices, community supports, affordable housing, supportive housing, in-home supports, employment and freedom from discrimination are just a few of the items for which we advocate.
Sue Abderholden, BILL TIEDEMANN and SARAH DANEN
The writers, respectively, represent NAMI Minnesota, the Minnesota AIDS Project and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Upper Midwest Chapter.
Look further: More are onboard for transit
Make no mistake about it: The Minnesota business community supports investments in transportation, (“All are not aboard for Minnesota’s transportation bill,” Lori Sturdevant column, April 27). Businesses both large and small depend on transportation to get goods and services to market, employees to work and customers to their doors. Our state’s founders understood the importance of transportation as well, making it one of only two funding mandates in our Constitution.
Unfortunately, Sturdevant cited just one business organization, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. This chamber does not want to increase investments in transportation; it argues that “there’s money flowing.” From our perspective, Minnesota’s current transportation funding limits our economic potential. For the last 10 years, the state has put the brakes on transportation funding, creating a backlog of unmet needs. Investing in transportation will make our state more economically competitive by attracting and retaining employers and talent, and increasing access to jobs and goods.
Many owners of small and independent businesses — along with local chambers and related business organizations, which are close to the communities and the constituents they serve — support transportation. We spoke at Transit Day at the State Capitol, made transportation a legislative priority, have contacted our legislators and published articles, and are at the ready to be called upon for consultation.
Audrey Britton and Chris Hanson
The writers, respectively, represent Small Business Minnesota and Metro IBA.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.