Letters To The Editor Respond To Opinion Piece Addressing Patient Choice

Main Category: Public Health
Also Included In: Primary Care / General Practice;  Health Insurance / Medical Insurance
Article Date: 10 Oct 2007 - 9:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

Two letters to the editor published on Friday in the Wall Street Journal address a Sept. 27 opinion piece written by Richard Miller, president and CEO of Pharmacyclics and an adjunct professor of oncology at Stanford University Medical Center, about the health care proposals of presidential candidates and patient choice. According to Miller, the proposals "all seek to spur greater patient choice of insurers, doctors and potential treatments," but "our choices are not only constrained by limited insurance options." He added, "Patient choice is also severely compromised by a lack of comparative performance data on individual physicians, hospitals, clinics and treatments. And in many life or death situations, where treatment options exist but carry some risk, the FDA and courts are denying patients the right to choose altogether" (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 9/27). Summaries of the letters appear below.

• Betsy McCaughey: "Dr. Miller correctly argues that the FDA is dangerously limiting the medication choices of cancer patients," but he "starts his argument by misrepresenting" the health care proposal announced by presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), McCaughey, chair of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, writes. "To set the record straight, the Clinton plan does not 'seek to spur greater patient choice of insurers,'" but rather "empowers government to limit health insurance profits," McCaughey writes. She adds, "Limiting the profits of the most unpopular industry in America may sound good, but, if profits are pressed too low, investors will flee to other industries, and the choice of private insurance will become a thing of the past" (McCaughey, Wall Street Journal, 10/5).
  
  
• Helen Sherman: "Dr. Miller would have us believe there is little difference between using approved drugs for off-label purposes and using experimental drugs not yet approved by the FDA," Sherman, senior director and chief pharmacy officer of RegenceRx, writes. "Even approved drugs used for off-label purposes offer patients a minimal expectation of safety," he adds. "Patients rely on the FDA to vet their medications for safety and quality as well as efficacy," and the "contention that terminally ill patients have a right to any experimental medications eliminates even that expectation," according to Sherman (Sherman, Wall Street Journal, 10/5).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation© 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations