MINNESOTA VOICES
Finally, some facts in the health care debate
Kudos to the Star Tribune for a breath of fresh air on the health care subject. Bill George's Minnesota Voices column ("Time to transform state's health care," March 7) contained facts and ideas, unlike the scores of editorials, letters and articles over the last several years that often only spout vague generalities, political talking points and many times outright falsehoods about health care.
Two of his points are worth repeating: More than 50 percent of health care costs can be attributed to people not taking care of themselves, and 75 percent relate to managing the consequences of chronic health problems. I have talked to many health care professionals frustrated by patients with chronic problems who do not follow through with the guidance provided to them. The inevitable result is yet another hospitalization or health crisis, and costs that could be prevented drive our insurance costs higher and higher.
The other important fact is that the bills now being considered in Congress address access to insurance but not costs. In fact, costs would increase. We need more ideas and intelligence brought to this issue.
BOB HUNSTAD, EAGAN
• • •
Bill George's column states that every American should have access to health insurance, but that several key elements are missing from the reform discussion, including cost, quality and personal responsibility. His observation that incentives in the reimbursement system drive up the use of unnecessary tests is accurate. Recently, I experienced this firsthand. My doctor insisted that I have several tests done, but looking back, only one was truly necessary. However, we want to trust our doctors, never challenging what they say. So not only should everyone be personally responsible, our system of reimbursement needs to be changed. Doctors should not be reimbursed based on the number of tests they order for a patient, but rather for patient outcomes.
The proposed idea of moving away from primary and specialty care is one that should be closely considered. Having a personal care team with doctors, nurses, therapists and the like is brilliant. But George failed to address how the costs of this type of care would be covered. He proposes that payment for services would be based on ability to pay and that those who could not afford care would be given government aid. How is that different from today's system?
COURTNEY KENT, WOODBURY