The clock ran out. Federal funding for important safety-net health programs has expired, as detailed in last week's Star Tribune article "Health care on the brink: Minnesota low-income programs are set to expire if Congress fails to act" (Sept. 28). Funding for community health clinics (CHCs) is being cut by 70 percent, effective immediately. Minnesota clinics specifically will lose $27 million.
I have been working with our local CHCs for many years. My work focuses on prevention and early detection, and I work to increase screening rates in all our communities.
CHCs are champions of health. They understand the meaning of health care in each community they serve. This is not cookie-cutter work. Knowing the community matters.
In cancer care, prevention and early detection are crucial. That reduces costs and improves outcomes. But patients can be afraid to be screened and they may face many barriers. Many patients are worried about the results and the costs. CHCs work hard to eliminate all possible barriers: insurance, transportation, literacy, language, mistrust, confusion about cancer, and other cultural issues.
Congress must solve this problem quickly. Clinics are implementing layoff plans because they will not have the money to pay their workers. We cannot allow the progress health centers are making to falter because Washington, D.C., doesn't understand the value. Join me in asking the Minnesota delegation to raise this issue to congressional leadership and work together to ensure that this funding is rapidly reinstated.
Patricia Ruiz de Somocurcio, Golden Valley
The writer is primary care health systems manager for the American Cancer Society.
NO POLICE IN MINNEAPOLIS?
Star Tribune printing survey wasn't fake news, just junk news
I was profoundly disappointed to see the Star Tribune print the content of a survey that solicited City Council candidates' positions on the idea of the city of Minneapolis sans police ("Candidates envision Mpls. without police officers," Oct. 5). First of all, thank you to the candidates who refused to participate in the nonsense. Second, shame on those who pandered to what appears to be a narrowly focused advocacy group's fluffy new-age claptrap proposal by saying, yup, good idea, let's work on that. Third, and worst of all, is that the Star Tribune even condescended to print an article on the survey and the responses to it. This wasn't fake news; this was junk news that made the Star Tribune and those candidates who participated look like fools.
And in the article, there was reference to a new, young, more-diverse voter demographic that the survey purported to represent, as opposed to the more "traditional municipal electorate"? Good Lord a'mighty, what the hell does that mean? And if it does mean anything, here's my towel — I'm throwing it in.