Where is the evidence that “public anxiety over HMOs has been stoked more by jealous doctors. . .than by any widespread problem” (Editorial, July 25)? And what is it, exactly, that is causing these doctors to be jealous?
I have lost count of the number of times that my patients have received less than adequate follow-up care because an HMO employee without a medical degree has overruled a care plan designed to optimize outcome. Many other instances have involved refusal to pay for tests that are standard-of-care.
A clear problem is that HMOs answer to no one but themselves. Why does the Tribune believe that “the worst” of the Kennedy-Dingell proposal is a provision that would allow patients to sue their insurance plans for medical malpractice? You claim that this would expose insurance plans and employers to “outlandish jury awards,” implying that such judgments are a negative aspect of medical malpractice litigation. Outlandish awards, made on the basis of emotion and clever fact-twisting rather than on medical and scientific fact, are what physicians have lived with for decades.
Perhaps the jealousy about which you speak refers to a medical community that sees itself forced into lowering the standard of patient care by an HMO industry that remains immune to legal challenge.
