ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Doctors without debts

| Sunday, June 10, 2007

Eric Heyl's column on Montgomery County state Rep. Josh Shapiro's proposed medical school loan-forgiveness program (HB 1093) underestimates the physician shortage problem in Pennsylvania and its effects on public health in our commonwealth ("Proposal will treat docs with urgent care," June 6 and

The physician shortage is especially serious in rural Pennsylvania, where finding primary care physicians and certain specialists, such as obstetricians, is often difficult. More than 30 percent of Pennsylvanians live in rural areas. Student loan forgiveness might encourage physicians to practice in these medically underserved areas by defraying the lower compensation that physicians receive for providing medical care in rural parts of the state.

Physicians, particularly those in private practice, are similar to small business owners who have employees and pay for services needed to run the businesses. The excessive costs for mandated professional liability insurance for new physicians starting a private practice in the commonwealth is a strong deterrent.

Reimbursements to Pennsylvania's physicians from private health insurers, Medicare and Medicaid are low and do not keep pace with the growing costs of running a medical practice. Such a competitive disadvantage is the driving force behind young physicians leaving Pennsylvania for opportunities in other states.

The Allegheny County Medical Society supports HB 1093 because it would provide an economic incentive for physicians to stay in Pennsylvania and would help to recruit physicians to practice in rural and medically underserved areas.

Krishnan A. Gopal North Side

The writer is president of the Allegheny County Medical Society.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me