Should Government Intervene in HMOs?

The most important part of “HMOs Like GOP’s Medicare Reform Proposals” (Oct. 12) was buried in the last three paragraphs and raises several interesting questions as to the benefit of government intervention into health care.

“Medicare programs tend to generate higher profits for HMOs than commercial plans.” Why is that the case? This is similar to government workers justifying their salaries and perks by saying that they are paid less than non-government workers, but when the salaries are disclosed they are paid more than people that work for companies or for themselves.

“There is much less competition for the Medicare patients.” If Medicare patients generate more profits for the HMO than the commercial programs, why is there less competition for them? This doesn’t make sense. Nor does it make sense that the Medicare population, which tends to use doctor services more and medication more would generate more profits. Please explain this contradiction to me.

HMOs are concerned that “doctors and hospitals” would “form their own health plans.” Why shouldn’t the free market dictate costs of services? What is wrong with doctors and hospitals going directly to the people that they treat and avoiding the middlemen? How much of the fees paid to the HMOs go to debt service when they have been sold for staggering profits, and how much go for nonessential services and items that don’t relate to the patient care?

BARRY LEVY

Redondo Beach