Limits on coverage undermine the value of medical savings accounts
I have been researching medical savings accounts since they first became what I consider worthwhile. One fundamental reason MSAs are not in greater use is that they are simply not good health insurance plans.
Of the many I have investigated, they have all fallen short in one or more important benefit areas; these include skilled nursing facility care, physical or occupational therapy, home care, hospice, hospital days allowed, ICU/CCU days allowed, lifetime limits and more.
I would gladly accept the tax benefits of an MSA, but not at the expense of giving up my current comprehensive health plan with much better coverage.
I urge anyone who is considering an MSA to closely scrutinize the actual health benefits offered. After all, the most important reason to purchase an MSA is to maintain high quality health insurance coverage.
Tax savings should be a secondary consideration. Until the insurance industry realizes this, MSAs will remain underutilized.
--Fred Laufer, MD
Allentown, Pa.
Back to top
Looking back fondly over 20 years of service in AMA house
Having just "retired" from the House of Delegates as a delegate from New York, after over 20 years, I'd like to recall what a great experience it was and to encourage all physicians not only to join the AMA and their state and specialty societies, but also to actively participate in deliberations and in policy development.
I was conditioned to the precept that one has no right to complain about issues unless one is willing to work at change and development. As alternate delegate, then delegate, it was refreshing and gratifying to find so many colleagues unselfishly giving of time, talent and resources to work for enactment of their beliefs. I know it made me more tolerant, understanding and proud to be a physician.
My thanks to all at AMA, staff and members, for having enriched my professional and my personal life. All physicians, young and old, can benefit from involvement.
--George Lim, MD
Rome, N.Y.
Back to top
"Entrepreneur physicians" to blame for scope of practice problem
Regarding "AMA to fight nonphysician scope of practice expansions"
(Article, Jan. 3/10): The widest door to the scope of practice expansion by nonphysicians has been opened by physicians themselves, [through the use of] nurse anesthetists, physician assistants and nurse practitioners, etc.
These entrepreneur physicians will say all the politically correct things when questioned as to why they employ a less-skilled person to perform the physician skills needed to examine, diagnose, prescribe and treat patients; they will talk about enhancing access to health care, concern for community needs, etc., ad nauseam. But the bottom line is cash flow.
It is time for the physicians who are concerned for the future of our profession to stand up against the entrepreneurs and publicly state that physician services rendered by nonphysicians is illicit and unethical, and will not be tolerated.
--Dennis C. O'Connor, DO
Hemlock, Mich.
Back to top
CPR missing a beat on "ER"
Regarding "Physician-writer tells it like it is on television's 'ER' "
(Article, Dec. 20, 1999): In your article, "ER" writer Neal Baer, MD, expressed his hope that the show educates the public.
Unfortunately, every time I have seen cardiopulmonary resuscitation being performed on "ER", there has been some obvious error in the administration of this rescue technique.
On one occasion the elbows of the person giving compressions were not locked. Another time the fingers of the person giving compressions were not locked. On one of the episodes, the compression-breathing ratio was not correct.
Perhaps if the medical students were instructed (during the show) on how to give proper CPR, the viewing audience would have an even greater chance at saving lives based on "ER's" good example.
--Lara Hume, MD
Hollywood, Fla.
Back to top
Copyright 2000 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
