ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Josh Shapiro and Medicare competition | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Josh Shapiro and Medicare competition

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, appears on the front page taking UPMC to court to force it to permit Highmark Medicare recipients to forever be entitled to UPMC’s lower in-network rates for their physicians, services and hospitals, eliminating the inherent competition between the two firms (“AG Shapiro: UPMC’s ‘corporate greed’ hurting patients,” Feb. 7, TribLIVE).

A senior woman attending Shapiro’s recent press conference complained that her UPMC oncologist, who she has seen for seven years, will become an “out-of-network,” more expensive doctor, while she desires to remain with Highmark. This action would disadvantage UPMC and all its clients, while Highmark expands its business with the best prices in both going to their clients.

News for Shapiro, the headlined woman and those who read this letter: Each fall, Medicare-eligible people can elect to change their provider. There is actually real competition to change providers if it’s beneficial. Republicans generally propose “across state lines” competition to expand these choices. Shapiro’s distressed woman can simply change her coverage to UPMC and continue using her oncologist at UPMC’s “in-network” rates. This is competition.

People are not stupid and do not need the likes of Shapiro to litigate reduced competition for political purpose. How much state money is he wasting on this case when all that’s needed is some good advice to the distressed woman? (Refer to the “Medicare & You” handbook, issued annually by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to find the best Pennsylvania program for you.)

Len Bach

Murrysville


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.