Letters: Give Trump administration time to clean up ACA mess

While I do not know how Modern Healthcare selects the articles published in your newsletters and the magazine, most seem to be anti-Trump with regard to the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. While I appreciate that it has taken seven years of work, expense and commitment for the industry to comply with the ACA, it is without question the worst aggregate legislation I have ever encountered.

I won't go on a rant about all of the bad provisions the ACA included, but it would be worthwhile that you consider holding back on the negatives and give the new administration a chance to make things better. Keep in mind the length of time it took to roll out the mind-boggling, bureaucratic mess that is the ACA. Also keep in mind that millions of self-employed Americans age 55 to 65, like myself, are spending 20% or more of their annual incomes to pay for high-deductible health plans that deliver little or no benefit.

Howard Lamplugh

Regarding the article " 'One-in, two-out' executive order could shake up heavily regulated healthcare industry", (ModernHealthcare.com, Jan. 30) I was struck by the statement: “…the new executive order will multiply the work of regulators who now must spend significant time looking for rules to gut in order to pass new ones.”

This type of comment illustrates how out of touch some alleged experts have become regarding the impact of regulations on our economy.

Numerous think tanks, employer groups, provider groups and insurance organizations—as well as individuals—have documented absurd, wasteful and counterproductive rules and regulations in both healthcare and other sectors.

The comment presumes that regulators need to pass new regulations. Why? Maybe they should be more in touch with the failure of some existing regulations and remove regulations that are a negative to the economy or a negative to healthcare.

Bob Schmidt

In the Jan. 30 editorial, "How not to fix Medicare" (p.24), what should have been emphasized in the discussion regarding “the underlying problem driving excessive cost growth” is how Medicare is hardly impervious toward discouraging fraud and waste. Indeed, the extent of such fraud has now become like a stream running down a mountainside carving a wider path as it picks up momentum. Consequently, Medicare fraud has now metastasized into the neighborhood physician practices that remain under the radar, but for whistleblowers.

Requiring Medicare to pay upon receipt of invoice without adjudicating for prior approval of services has contributed to such rampant fraud. Although criticized for their high administrative costs, note how the commercial insurers spend upfront to prevent fraud by clinically reviewing to approve requests for services. Yet, the public is still fooled with misinformation about how much lower Medicare's administrative costs are in comparison.

M.E. Singer