Letters: Medicare cuts, Trump’s game

Medicare cuts

As a local rheumatologist who treats Medicare patients, I am deeply concerned by a recent proposal from the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that could result in further payment cuts for Medicare Part B drugs. If implemented, this mandatory payment model test would wreak havoc on patients and cause massive access and safety problems.

Many rheumatologists have already been forced to stop administering biologic therapies to Medicare patients suffering from arthritis, lupus and other rheumatic diseases because the current Part B payment structure does not cover the cost of obtaining and providing these complex therapies to patients. An additional payment cut would drive even more Medicare patients into less safe and more expensive settings — such as the patient's home or the hospital — to receive needed therapies, if they can access them at all.

The proposed pay cuts are intended to incentivize physicians to prescribe less-expensive drugs, but there are very few Part B biologics available to rheumatology patients to begin with, and their costs are all similar. Biologics are complex and cannot be easily interchanged or switched for less expensive options. Once a patient finds a biologic that works for him or her, it may be the only option.

Rheumatologists welcome meaningful reforms that will make biologics more affordable. However, the current proposed Medicare payment cuts will do nothing more than restrict Medicare patients' access to safe and life-changing therapies.

Kent Kwas Huston, M.D.

Shawnee

Trump’s game

If it did not have the all the “earmarks” of a conspiracy theory, it would seem that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is playing the shill in a con game to drive all other candidates out to ensure Sen. Ted Cruz gets the GOP nomination for the White House job.

John Nelles

Shawnee

Science, orthodoxy

Two trends exist in the U.S. and world today. One is that of science, technology, hypothesis generation and testing based on data collection and probability analysis. The other is decision-making based on orthodoxy and beliefs, not subject to testing or analysis.

Once again, this year, we seem to be choosing between these approaches. What have they given us?

Hypothesis generation, data collection and probability analysis, the world of science and technology, have given us highways, cars, aircraft, flight, space travel, medicine, safe foods and water, cellphones, computers, X-ray machines, microwaves and television.

Decision-making based on orthodoxy and faith has given us the Inquisition, trial by fire, Crusaders, jihadists, religious wars and a lot of moving stories. It has also given us Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — both Republicans.

The choice between these methods is decision-making based on rational testing or based on claimed revelation. The choice is between leadership in which results matter or leadership in which claims with no statistical support guide us. Simply put, we could think of it as a choice between the world with technology or a world of the Inquisition and jihadists.

We have to choose. No action is still a choice. Which is it to be?

Chris Roesel

Roeland Park

High court pick

It is not surprising that Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas buckled under to the pressure from Republican leadership to not meet with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland (4-2, A2, “Moran backs away from Garland view”). Senator, as a resident of the state of Kansas, which you represent, it is a disgrace that you will not do the job you were elected to do.

You stated you listened to your constituents, but truth be told, you listened to people threatening to primary you if you took a courtesy meeting with Garland. I find it interesting that leadership has stated directly to Garland it is not about him.

The GOP leadership has also stated it would more than likely nominate him after the election if a Democrat were to win the White House. The voters of Kansas and the country aren't stupid and know this is only about not allowing President Barack Obama to seat a justice.

Merrick Garland was the name Republicans put forth to the president during the last two Supreme Court vacancies and heaped praise on him. Now they would rather put the court in disarray for what could be over a year based only on their deep dislike of the president.

Do your job, senator.

Karen Lane

Shawnee

Moran caves in

When I read that Kansas U.S. Senator Jerry Moran was going to meet with President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, and supported bringing the nomination to a vote in the U.S. Senate, I was thinking “Profiles in Courage.” That was President John F. Kennedy's book about brave people who took very courageous positions while going against the tide of a popular majority or political thought.

The senator made this commitment because he said it was his job as a senator to do so.

Then, a week later, the senator caved-in to a number of “conservative” groups that brought the pressure of obstructionism to the discussion as they have done on so many occasions, over the past eight years of the Obama administration (4-2, A2, “Moran backs away from Garland view”). This, of course, is the opposite of of “courage.”

In the interest of opinion transparency, I am no fan of the Democrat Party, but I absolutely despise what the GOP has become, having been a voting member of such until 2003. It is not necessary to go into detail, here. Just look at the current primary for president of the United States.

Ted Steinmeyer

Overland Park

This story was originally published April 12, 2016 at 6:11 PM with the headline "Letters: Medicare cuts, Trump’s game."