Letters to the Editor: Good for Glendale Unified on fiscal responsibility; health insurance industry needs reining in
I was visiting a friend who lives in Glendale and I noticed the article in the Glendale News-Press titled “Glendale Unified School District eyes building for a potential exchange.” As I started to read the article, my initial reaction was, “What a refreshing thought, a public entity actually thinking outside of the box coming up with a solution other than just wasting our tax dollars on upgrading an old building that they had outgrown 10 years ago.”
As I continued reading, I learned the new property will house all the current district offices, including other off-site offices that they currently pay rent for, have room to start new programs and yet generate thousands of dollars from renting out the remaining unused space. I could not believe what I was reading! A public entity was coming up with other sources of revenue and not just waiting for federal tax dollars to operate.
I don’t know what that outcome will be, but I must give credit to Glendale Unified for thinking outside of the box and coming up with excellent solutions. That is why this district is so well respected and a great asset to the city of Glendale.
Now I know why property prices are so high and why I cannot afford to live in Glendale.
Gabrielle Slater
North Hollywood
--
Re: “Why we fight for universal healthcare,” commentary, July 8. Congressman Schiff details the need to expand healthcare to millions of Americans, and while this is an admirable goal worth full-throated support, any healthcare reform effort maintaining the status quo of insurance companies covering so many Americans must address the tactics used by insurance companies to inflate their profit margins.
Reforming the nation’s healthcare system requires scrutinizing the tactics insurance companies use to slash covered benefits, while bilking patients out of more money. It gives patients little peace of mind if they purchase insurance to prevent bankruptcy from a single medical crisis, only to find their insurer won’t pay for necessary treatments once a crisis hits.
Insurance companies are refusing to cover a growing number of prescription medications, now including treatments for leukemia and prostate cancer, through a tactic called “formulary exclusions,” pathways and restricting access to oncology care to the lowest bidder. The number of prescriptions excluded from health plans has quadrupled in the last five years, yet a 2015 Kaiser study found that Americans with employer-sponsored healthcare saw their premiums rise by 255% since 2006.
Insurers try to save money by excluding the most expensive drugs, preferring cheaper alternatives. While several drugs can treat similar illnesses or symptoms, doctors make choices based on both a drug’s specific characteristics and a patient’s physiology. In too many cases, the treatment the insurance company will cover isn’t as effective as the treatment a doctor preferred, or the covered treatment introduces complications that could have been avoided, had the insurance covered the preferred medication.
Americans should not have to doubt whether their insurance will cover treatments their doctors say are essential to continued health and well-being.
Mariana S-B Lamb
Upland
The writer is president of Efficient Physician, Inc., executive director of the Medical Oncology Assn. of Southern California, Inc.; president of the National Oncology Society Network, Inc.; advisory board member of the Community Oncology Alliance, Inc. and editorial board advisor to Oncology Practice Management magazine