Health care costs, FEMA grants, CIPC site housing

Health policy clash on cost and access

A guest essay omitted some key aspects of how New York’s independent dispute resolution (IDR) system works and why the Usual and Customary Rate benchmark exists [“This health care mandate is a ‘killer,’ ” Opinion, March 11].

UCR is not simply several physicians deciding what “they would like to get paid.” It utilizes specific methodology, which excludes excessive charges. The IDR entities side with physicians more often than with insurers because their proposals are more reasonable. It is one of several factors that neutral arbitrators may consider when resolving payment disputes between insurers and physicians, including information regarding median payments by insurers. New York’s “baseball arbitration” model requires the arbitrator to select one of the two proposed amounts in full rather than splitting the difference. That encourages both sides to submit reasonable offers.

Ultimately, these safeguards exist for one reason: to ensure patients have timely access to emergency care in underserved areas.

Many disputes arise because initial insurer payments are unreasonable. Without a fair resolution process, physicians — particularly specialists providing emergency or hospital-based care — would be forced to accept those low payments.

Specialties such as neurosurgery, anesthesiology, radiology, and orthopedics are on call around the clock for emergencies. Removing IDR would discourage many medical specialists from continuing to provide essential care in emergency departments and discourage insurers from offering reasonable contracts.

Weakening IDR protections will not lower costs for patients. Instead, it will destabilize the physician workforce and harm access to care.

To protect patients’ access to urgent and emergency care, we urge policymakers to again reject state budget proposals that undermine patient access to New York’s already overstretched hospital emergency departments.

— Dr. David Jakubowicz, Westbury

The writer is president of the Medical Society of the State of New York.

Guest essayist Lev Ginsburg is correct. Health insurance in this state, and in this country, is a disaster. But he is wrong about the solution. New York does not need “thoughtful reforms” and “reasonable standards” of billing rates.

New York needs the New York Health Act.

The NYHA would eliminate confusion about costs. It would eliminate out-of-network services. It would cover 100% of New Yorkers and save 90%-95% of us money.

New York can lead the country in health care reform. When Canada passed its version of Medicare for All, it wasn’t a national program. It started in one province — Saskatchewan. And it’s been so beneficial that when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation held a contest to name the greatest Canadian of all time, it wasn’t Wayne Gretzky or Pierre Trudeau. It was Tommy Douglas, a former Saskatchewan premier considered the father of Canadian Medicare.

We have enough Democrats in the State Legislature to pass the NYHA. The only thing we lack is Gov. Kathy Hochul’s support to push it through.

— Eric Gemunder, Huntington Station

Losing mitigation funds would hurt grid

Reports on limiting federal storm mitigation funding for utilities like the Long Island Power Authority should set off alarms for all Long Islanders [“LIPA impact if storm mitigation funds altered,” News, March 12]. For more than a decade, Federal Emergency Management Agency grants have helped strengthen Long Island’s electric grid after devastating storms like Superstorm Sandy and Tropical Storm Isaias. Those investments didn’t just protect infrastructure — they protected communities. They kept the lights on for families and businesses and put thousands of skilled workers on the job doing critical work that benefits the public.

Now FEMA may step back from funding these projects. That’s unacceptable. Storm mitigation protects our grid from disasters before they happen, enabling power to flow during our most dire times.

If this funding disappears, all of Long Island will feel the consequences. Our grid will be less reliable, storm recovery will be slower, and thousands of working men and women who count on this money to survive will lose their income. Washington must not turn its back on the communities that rely on these investments.

— Pat Guidice, East Northport

The writer is business manager of IBEW Local Union 1049.

Stick to the topic without straying

In “Housing proposed for ex-psychiatric center” [Our Towns, March 13], the article reported on the potential construction of affordable housing on the grounds of the former Central Islip Psychiatric Center, land that was most recently owned by the New York Institute of Technology.

This article, which has nothing to do with mental health treatment, takes a shot at CIPC by referring to it as “an asylum where some patients underwent treatments including electroshock and lobotomies.”

For most of over 100 years, CIPC was a respectable hospital operated by the state Office of Mental Health, eventually closing as part of the state’s downsizing of inpatient beds.

While electroshock and lobotomies were once more prevalent than today, there is no need to identify them as the notable features of CIPC, especially in an article about housing.

— Dennis Dubey, Port Jefferson Station

The writer is former executive director of Sagamore Children’s Psychiatric Center in Dix Hills.