{"id":778,"date":"2025-07-31T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-07-31T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dangeladvertising.com\/?p=778"},"modified":"2025-08-01T15:13:11","modified_gmt":"2025-08-01T15:13:11","slug":"readers-weigh-in-on-making-american-health-care-affordable-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.dangeladvertising.com\/index.php\/2025\/07\/31\/readers-weigh-in-on-making-american-health-care-affordable-again\/","title":{"rendered":"Readers Weigh In on Making American Health Care Affordable Again"},"content":{"rendered":"
Letters to the Editor<\/a>\u00a0is a periodic feature. We\u00a0welcome all comments<\/a>\u00a0and will publish a selection. We edit for length and clarity and require full names.<\/em><\/p>\n Sounding the Alarm for Ambulances<\/strong><\/p>\n Thank you for shedding much-needed light on the exorbitant costs and lack of reimbursement that have become a harsh reality for many ambulance services across Colorado and the nation (\u201cInsurers Fight State Laws Restricting Surprise Ambulance Bills<\/a>,\u201d July 9). While it\u2019s vital to protect patients from \u201csurprise\u201d bills \u2014 something your coverage highlights \u2014 it\u2019s equally important to acknowledge the other side of the equation.<\/p>\n Ambulance providers often receive reimbursements well below the actual cost of delivering care. A recent industry report<\/a> found that ambulance services are under\u2011reimbursed by an average of $1,526 per transport, with Medicare alone paying nearly $2,334 less than the cost incurred. These shortfalls are unsustainable and threaten the financial viability of emergency responders.<\/p>\n It\u2019s crucial that ambulance companies have a stronger voice in this conversation. Reimbursement rates aren\u2019t just numbers \u2014 they determine whether crews can stay on the road, maintain readiness, and invest in vital mobile health care services. Emergency preparedness relies on stable funding, and when that funding falls short, communities suffer.<\/p>\n By spotlighting the reimbursement crisis, this article helps lay the groundwork for policy solutions. But let\u2019s go a step further: We need to elevate the voice of ambulance agencies themselves, so lawmakers and insurers understand that fair payment isn\u2019t a bonus \u2014 it\u2019s essential to keep us safe.<\/p>\n \u2014 Patrick Fahey, Weymouth, Massachusetts<\/em><\/p>\n A DevOps engineer shared the NPR version of the article on social media:<\/em><\/p>\n Families hit hard by surprise ambulance bills-some see debts soar even with insurance. More states are acting, but a national solution may be needed for real protection. https:\/\/t.co\/Efb6me3Png<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/HRSW5mCdiu<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Michael Bennett (@M1keB_77) July 11, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u2014 Michael Bennett, Denver<\/em><\/p>\n \u2018Congress Is Playing Political Hot Potato With My Health\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019m 60, self-employed, and living with congestive heart failure. My ejection fraction is dangerously low, and the Affordable Care Act is the reason I can see a doctor, take my medication, and stay alive.<\/p>\n Now Congress is playing political hot potato with my health. If they don\u2019t extend the ACA\u2019s enhanced subsidies by August, my $30 premium could jump to over $800. That\u2019s over 25 times as much. I\u2019m not a hedge fund manager \u2014 I\u2019m an independent contractor. Unless I start selling organs (not ideal when your heart\u2019s the issue), I can\u2019t keep up.<\/p>\n I\u2019m too young for Medicare and have no employer plan. I\u2019ve worked, paid taxes, and managed my condition responsibly. So why am I being priced out of care?<\/p>\n If Congress won\u2019t listen, I\u2019m asking you \u2014 the press \u2014 to help. Tell this story, or one just like it. Millions of Americans are quietly panicking, walking the same tightrope. These policy changes aren\u2019t just math \u2014 they\u2019re about human lives.<\/p>\n Because if nothing changes, a lot of us won\u2019t be around to write letters next year.<\/p>\n \u2014 Kevin Bahn, Tamarac, Florida<\/em><\/p>\n Americans Pay the Price for a Sick Health Care System<\/strong><\/p>\n I am sure your readers would be interested in how American health care costs compare with those of the European Union and Switzerland (\u201cBill of the Month<\/a>: A Texas Boy Needed Protection From Measles. The Vaccine Cost $1,400<\/a>,\u201d June 30).<\/p>\n In France, the private price for the MMR vaccine is around $13 (in U.S. dollars), provided you have a prescription. Any pharmacy can administer the jab for about the same.<\/p>\n Here in Switzerland, the most expensive country in Europe, this vaccine costs under $40, as a private purchase.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve moved 18 times with family across Western and Eastern Europe and have had expat staff in 35 countries on four continents.<\/p>\n It\u2019s very clear to me now that most national attempts at health care are a costly failure, with few notable exceptions: Germany and, surprisingly, Spain. Then there\u2019s Switzerland, which has among the best health care systems in the world \u2014 close to perfect. Basic coverage terms are federally mandated and cost around $430 a month with a $2,500 annual deductible, irrespective of age, after 26. And with a $300 yearly deductible, the premiums are about 40% higher.<\/p>\n Something is very off in the USA. It\u2019s not that complicated.<\/p>\n \u2014 Clement Cohen, Geneva, Switzerland<\/em><\/p>\n A registered nurse shared his solution for taming Medicaid fraud in a post on X:<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cThey\u2019ll give you a bone if you stay in the mud.It\u2019s relatively easy to fix the benefit cliff: just phase in a graduated premium for Medicaid based on income above the threshold. If we had political will to do this, it would prompted self-sufficiency.https:\/\/t.co\/4fxSnmETRd<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Jacob Larsen \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 \ud83c\udde9\ud83c\uddf0 \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6 (@SLCPaladin) July 22, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u2014 Jacob Larsen, St. George, Utah<\/em><\/p>\n Why \u2018Start From Scratch\u2019 Vaccine Testing Can Be Dangerous<\/strong><\/p>\n I anticipate we\u2019ll be hearing more discussion around the use of \u201cinert\u201d placebos \u2014 like saline solutions \u2014 as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention approach new vaccine recommendations (\u201cKennedy\u2019s Vaccine Advisers Sow Doubts as Scientists Protest US Pivot on Shots<\/a>,\u201d June 27). This type of messaging seems poised to gain traction with the public, despite its ethical implications.<\/p>\n Increasingly, I\u2019m seeing criticism that vaccine development doesn\u2019t rely on inert placebos. This argument is often used to advocate for new clinical trials \u2014 even for vaccines already proven effective \u2014 and to justify beginning booster development from scratch.<\/p>\n While inert placebos may have been used and were appropriate in early stages of research for vaccines, their use becomes ethically problematic when a safe, effective vaccine already exists. In such cases, withholding protection from participants in a placebo group can put them at real risk, especially during the development of updated or booster doses of vaccines.<\/p>\n I believe it\u2019s critical that organizations like KFF Health News help clarify this issue for the public. KFF is a highly respected, nonpartisan source with powerful communication reach. I\u2019m a subscriber to KFF Health News and appreciate the way your reporting draws in readers with accessible, engaging headlines \u2014 and that your articles are available for syndication to other outlets.<\/p>\n Two key points I found buried in an American Academy of Pediatrics article<\/a> stood out:<\/p>\n That brings up another important question: Who would volunteer for a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving an inert placebo for an existing vaccine? People hesitant about vaccines are unlikely to participate, for fear they will receive the vaccine. And those who support vaccination may be reluctant to risk receiving an inert placebo instead of testing the current, older proven version against a new proposed version.<\/p>\n \u2014 Alice Henneman, Lincoln, Nebraska<\/em><\/p>\n A virologist and podcaster chimed in on the June installment of our \u201cBill of the Month\u201d series:<\/em><\/p>\n A post doctoral fellow at UTMB couldn\u2019t afford the university\u2019s insurance option for his family so he bought a separate plan. It cost him $1400 to get his child the measles vaccine. During an outbreak. Get your vaccines now, before they are not covered. https:\/\/t.co\/f3wWRouevA<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Heather McSharry, PhD (@PathogenScribe) July 1, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u2014 Heather McSharry, Austin, Texas<\/em><\/p>\n A Premium Shell Game?<\/strong><\/p>\n I read Michelle Andrews\u2019 article today, published in the San Francisco Chronicle (\u201cHave Job-Based Health Coverage at 65? You May Still Want To Sign Up for Medicare<\/a>,\u201d June 18). Thanks for reporting on this important issue.<\/p>\n You describe as contributing factors: ignorance of the employee, the lack of any requirement that Medicare notify the employee, and the failure of the broker to notify.<\/p>\n Perhaps I missed it, but I believe there\u2019s an important additional factor you didn\u2019t mention: the profit of the commercial insurance carrier. In my experience, folks don\u2019t notice that their primary insurance has changed to Medicare primarily because their employer is still deducting the premium for their commercial group health insurance.<\/p>\n Isn\u2019t it fraud for the insurance carrier to collect premiums for a policy for which the subscriber is visibly no longer eligible by law?<\/p>\n There\u2019s a financial incentive for the commercial carrier not to tell the subscriber that their coverage has ended, and they are now eligible for a Medicare Advantage supplemental policy (with a much lower premium) if they sign up for Medicare: The commercial carrier can collect high premiums, then decline to pay benefits.<\/p>\n You mention that Medicare representatives note they are not required to notify subscribers. Why? Coincidence? More likely, the commercial insurance companies actively lobby against notification.<\/p>\n Also, there\u2019s a financial incentive for hospitals to perform procedures on patients who are 65 or older and still on a commercial plan. Pretty sure the hospital billing office knows quite well they will eventually be able to bill the patient the retail fee, which is typically 10 times as much (or more) than the Medicare-discounted fee.<\/p>\n In my experience, this is not a doctor issue, as the physician rarely pays any attention to insurance details. But it\u2019s very much a billing office issue.<\/p>\n \u2014 John S. Smolowe, Menlo Park, California<\/em><\/p>\n A reader in Connecticut tweeted his opinion on the risks of cannabis for an aging population:<\/em><\/p>\n Normalized cannabis use now will yield a big public health problem later and all the data points in that direction\u2026\ud83d\udc47\ud83c\udffc\u201cAs Cannabis Users Age, Health Risks Appear To Grow\u201d https:\/\/t.co\/xNrqqz1k1L<\/a> via @kffhealthnews<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Brandon M. Macsata \ud83c\udf97\ufe0f (@Purple_Strategy) June 9, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u2014 Brandon M. Macsata, New Haven, Connecticut<\/em><\/p>\n Getting Ahead of Known and Unknown Threats<\/strong><\/p>\n As highlighted in your article \u201c\u2018MAHA Report\u2019 Calls for Fighting Chronic Disease, but Trump and Kennedy Have Yanked Funding<\/a>\u201d (July 2), proposals to eliminate the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion do not align with efforts to address our country\u2019s chronic disease crisis. These plans also further underscore the importance of strengthening America\u2019s public health infrastructure not only to save lives, but also to ensure taxpayer dollars are used wisely.<\/p>\n For each dollar invested in disease prevention, the Trust for America\u2019s Health<\/a> estimates, $5.60 in downstream costs can be saved nationwide \u2014 and this figure is even higher in some states.<\/p>\n But just as cuts to chronic health research will hamper the federal government\u2019s goals of preventing diabetes, heart disease, and obesity, so too do cuts to broader public health funding streams inhibit state and local health departments\u2019 ability to stop outbreaks of measles, drug overdoses, or hepatitis, among many other preventable conditions.<\/p>\n Investments in public health have saved lives and strengthened our country. Identifying emerging threats quickly \u2014 whether they come from infectious diseases, zoonotic illnesses, accidents, or injuries \u2014 is vital to mitigating them. Unfortunately, federal cuts to vital public health funding streams and programs make it increasingly difficult for our nation\u2019s leaders to understand the threats facing their communities and make the most informed decisions possible to help their communities.<\/p>\n Across the country, public health departments are scaling back staff and delaying plans to adopt better technology due to funding constraints; therefore, many departments lack the resources to detect and respond to threats in a timely manner. Rural and underserved communities that have fewer resources to sustain or replace federal investment are at greatest risk.<\/p>\n Without continued investment in public health infrastructure \u2014 from the federal government as well as state, territorial, local, and tribal governments \u2014 the impact of future health risks will be multiples higher on both the national health care system and the resources (including government investment) needed to address whatever may be coming next.<\/p>\n To truly improve public health, our leaders at every level of government should be doubling down on public health systems, both infrastructure and technology, as the foundation and path to keep America healthy.<\/p>\n \u2014 Eric Whitworth, CEO of InductiveHealth, Atlanta<\/em><\/p>\n The CEO of 4sight Health had this advice, posted on X:<\/em><\/p>\n Don’t listen to what the regime says. Watch what it does. What this story calls “contradictions” and “inconsistencies” are lies and diversions from its anti-health agenda. The market must pick up the chronic disease prevention torch.\u00a0https:\/\/t.co\/SgWYe3KCtp<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 David Johnson (@4sighthealth_) July 8, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u2014 David Johnson, Chicago<\/em><\/p>\n Preventive Physical Therapy Can Spare You From Injury \u2014 And Rehab<\/strong><\/p>\n Thank you for recently highlighting the critical need for quality physical therapy (\u201cHow To Find the Right Medical Rehab Services<\/a>,\u201d July 15) and providing a comprehensive guide on navigating rehabilitation services after hospitalization. It is also important to note the preventive power physical therapy has before an acute injury strikes.<\/p>\n Physical and occupational therapy services are not just a form of post-accident care but are also proactive, non-pharmaceutical strategies to preserve strength, balance, and independence \u2014 especially for our aging population. And research shows that when physical therapy is the first line of treatment<\/a> for certain conditions like lower back pain \u2014 rather than injections or surgery \u2014 Medicare Part\u202fA\/B costs drop by 19% compared with patients choosing injections first and by 75% compared with surgery-first cases.<\/p>\n Moreover, physical therapist-led fall prevention programs<\/a> have been shown to reduce fall risk, while also cutting emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and opioid use among older adults. These numbers matter deeply in an aging America where 30\u202fmillion older adults fall each year and the lifetime medical cost of treating falls is over $100 billion annually<\/a>. And yet, the Medicare system often prioritizes post\u2011injury treatment over preventive care, delaying access to essential physical therapy until after damage occurs.<\/p>\n In light of our nation\u2019s need for more preventive care, it is time for our Congress to enable easier, earlier access to physical therapy. One way lawmakers can help is by supporting and passing the bipartisan Stopping Addiction and Falls for the Elderly, or SAFE, Act (H.R. 1171<\/a>). This commonsense legislation would allow Medicare beneficiaries to access no-cost falls risk assessments from the fall prevention experts: physical and occupational therapists.<\/p>\n Incorporating physical therapy into primary and preventive care has the potential to decrease hospital visits, lower health care spending, and preserve our seniors\u2019 independence \u2014 goals we all share. It\u2019s time to shift the policy spotlight upstream. Physical therapy has already proved it saves money and<\/em> improves lives.<\/p>\n \u2014 Nikesh Patel, executive director of the Alliance for Physical Therapy Quality and Innovation (<\/em>APTQI<\/em><\/a>), Sugar Land, Texas<\/em><\/p>\n\n KFF Health News<\/a> is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF\u2014an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
USE OUR CONTENT<\/h3>\n