Managed Care Ballot Initiatives

In “Doctors Take No Stance on Props. 214, 216” (Sept. 8), backers of the propositions noted that large numbers of doctors who work for HMOs or medical groups that depend on HMO contracts are California Medical Assn. members. I, too, am disappointed that the CMA took a neutral position on Props. 214 and 216 instead of supporting them, but it took a flurry of letters to the CMA from the doctor members who support the propositions to keep the CMA from opposing these propositions. Many patient-advocate doctors worked actively to bring Prop. 214 to the ballot and we support it now. I favor Prop. 214 because it will not require government funding and if changes are needed, they can be accomplished by a simple legislative majority.

The insurance companies and their HMOs will fight the propositions mightily with misleading TV, radio and print ads in order to protect their “cash cow.” Read between the lines and vote for patients’ rights with Prop. 214!

MELVIN H. KIRSCHNER MD

Van Nuys

It’s no surprise that the CMA could not see its way to endorsing Props. 214 and 216 on the November ballot, even though they are supposed to be “patient protection acts.” Could it be that the doctors can see clearly that neither proposition provides more or better care to a single Californian?

Instead, the CMA saw the initiatives for what they are--a full employment act for the sponsoring unions. Not wanting to get into a battle with their colleagues, the doctors voted to stay neutral.

Even Dr. Jack Lewin, the CMA executive vice president, said in your article that these severely flawed initiatives “look more like labor union issues than patient protections.” Kind of says it all, don’t you think?

BARTON WALD MD

Pasadena