A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Loveland Reporter-Herald, June 30, on a loophole in the health care overhaul that allows members of the middle class to receive Medicaid:
Federal officials should get busy to immediately correct an error in the health care law that would allow several million people in the financial middle class to receive insurance intended for poor people.
According to the Associated Press, the problem was only recently discovered. Since it does not take effect until 2014, there is time to make the necessary changes. But since time flies, somebody in Washington, D.C., better put this on his to-do list.
The problem has to do with those who retire early. A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid. According to the AP, quoting the Medicare actuary’s office, a married couple retiring at 62 in 2014 and receiving the maximum Social Security benefit of $23,500 apiece could receive $17,000 from other sources and still qualify for Medicaid with a total income of $64,000. That would put the couple at about four times the federal poverty level.
There may be other problems with the law as well. “The fact that this is being discovered now tells you, what else is baked into this law?” said former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, who served as Health and Human Services secretary under President George W. Bush.
Speaking for the Obama administration, Richard Sorian, spokesman for Health and Human Services said, “We are concerned that, as a matter of law, some middle-income Americans may be receiving coverage through Medicaid, which is meant to serve only the neediest Americans. We are exploring options to address this issue.”
The massive health care bill was designed to help address ongoing concerns about how the country handles health care insurance for all of its citizens. Due to the size and complexity of the bill, and the probability the law was approved without full reading and understanding of the contents by some of those who voted for it, other problems may emerge as well.
In addition to problems like the Medicaid eligibility matter, there are ongoing philosophical questions about the new legislation. Presumably, these will be worked out in the courts. In cases where there is a clear error, like this Medicaid eligibility issue, lawmakers and the executive branch and political appointees who are to implement the law should work together as soon as possible to implement the necessary legislative corrections.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, July 5, on medical marijuana rules:
Don’t accuse proponents of medical marijuana of being high if they seem confused about the state of regulations governing their industry. Anyone could get a little unsteady on the regulatory roller coaster ride regarding medical marijuana.
For example, there’s a renewed question of what federal authorities will do.
Combined with a state court decision, the Obama administration helped start the frenzy of medical marijuana dispensaries springing up in Colorado two years ago. That’s when a deputy attorney general announced that federal law enforcement officials shouldn’t waste resources arresting and prosecuting people who are in “clear and unambiguous compliance” with state laws that legalized marijuana for medical purposes.
But late last week, according to The Denver Post, another deputy attorney general said federal officials may prosecute anyone who is “in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana and those who knowingly facilitate such activities.”
Officials with the Department of Justice said the two announcements aren’t contradictory. The first one applied to individuals who legitimately use medical marijuana for their personal ailments. But the second one applies to the retail growing and sales operations that have developed to serve those individuals.
That’s a reasonable distinction. There were, after all, no medical marijuana dispensaries operating in Colorado when the first announcement from the deputy attorney general was made.
It would have been helpful, however, if the Justice Department hadn’t waited two years before issuing the second statement. Perhaps then we wouldn’t have had the dispensary boom, followed by two straight legislative sessions in which Colorado lawmakers tried to craft reasonable laws to govern the businesses.
Speaking of legislative efforts, the latest state laws regulating medical marijuana—both dispensaries and caregivers—took effect Friday. But they could be put on hold if a judge accepts arguments made by a group of patients and caregivers in a lawsuit filed last Thursday and issues an injunction to block implementation of the laws.
Among other things, the plaintiffs claim that the laws may force medical marijuana users to obtain their pot from dispensaries rather than caregivers who serve only small numbers of patients.
The effect of the lawsuit, however, is to leave both dispensary operators and caregivers again wondering what rules they need to follow.
We stated last week our support for the additional regulations that took effect July 1. But we certainly can sympathize with those who have invested in dispensaries, growing operations or other purportedly legal activities related to medical marijuana.
Whether you sell widgets, drill for oil and gas or provide services to those who use medical marijuana under a state constitutional amendment that legalized such use, it’s difficult to operate a business when there is no regulatory consistency.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Daily Tribune, July 4, on watching out for animal cruelty:
Thanks to the close observation of an animal control officer, some horses in a state of serious neglect are getting the help they need.
Thirteen horses, many of them near starvation and in bad physical condition, were removed from property in rural Evans last week.
The owner of the horses, Jose Louis Meza-Franco, 33, faces possible criminal charges for the neglect of the animals. He’s been charged with animal cruelty before.
The horses were located and removed after an animal control officer noticed something else suspicious on the property: a rooster with his comb cropped closely to his head.
The officer recognized that roosters with trimmed combs are often used in cock fighting and became suspicious. Cock fighting is illegal.
While investigating the rooster, Weld County sheriff’s deputies found the horses, and it was evident they were in bad shape. Many had scars and marks from injuries.
The horses were removed and taken to a safe location, where they were fed and cared for.
If it weren’t for the careful observation of this animal control officer, those 13 horses might still be suffering.
Animal cruelty is a disturbing crime. Animals can’t speak up and report their own abuse. That’s why it takes the diligence of neighbors and residents to make sure possible cases of abuse are reported.
This certainly isn’t the first case of animal abuse in Weld County, nor will it be the last. But if unsafe and unscrupulous owners can be discovered and brought to justice, it might deter others from engaging in abusive practices.
We know these animals are being well cared for now, but it is expensive to feed and house horses. The county will foot the bill until any criminal proceedings are finished and the horses can be adopted out through a horse rescue program. This is a crime that eventually costs us all.
We urge residents who witness animal abuse or neglect to take the lead of this animal control officer and report what you see to the proper authorities.
It’s all of our responsibility to protect those who can’t protect themselves.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, July 3, on the shortage of doctors in rural communities:
A looming shortage of primary care physicians in Colorado—and around the country—is a knotty problem that calls for creative and careful policy prescriptions.
Already, Colorado needs nearly 200 more family doctors, mostly in rural areas. In a few years, as national health care reform kicks in, that doctor shortage will double.
The trend has not gone unnoticed by the state’s policymakers and educators, who’ve taken steps to offer financial incentives and special courses of study to coax prospective doctors into primary care.
Their efforts will narrow the gap, but more must be done to ensure inner-city patients and those living in rural areas can see a doctor when they need to.
In Colorado, part of the problem is the cost of medical school. In-state tuition and fees at University of Colorado’s medical school have more than doubled in the last decade. That figure for the 2010-11 school year was a whopping $33,089.
The increases in costs for those who go to CU’s medical school at the Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora are directly related to a trend of deep cuts to higher education funding in Colorado. Upon graduation, medical students leave with an average of nearly $140,000 in debt—and a need to make money to pay it off.
That’s one of the motivations for taking up lucrative specialties paying two to three times more than primary care.
CU’s medical school has spent much of the past decade getting programs up and running to identify, educate and encourage students to go into primary care in underserved urban and rural areas.
Jack Westfall, associate dean for rural health at CU’s medical school, says there are now some 35 students each year in these tracks, about 15-18 percent of each class of medical students.
Admissions preference is given to students who grew up in rural or underserved urban locations in Colorado, and students are taught some of the idiosyncrasies of practicing in these areas.
While the programs are a good start, it still will take some years and additional effort to meet the growing need for primary care doctors.
More funding for medical school and residency training programs, and federal and insurance reimbursement systems more favorable to primary care, also would help the situation.
Loan forgiveness for medical school debt is another way of addressing the economic incentives of practicing in primary care.
Colorado does have a loan forgiveness program through the Colorado Health Service Corps. It awarded $2.5 million in 2011 to a variety of health care professionals who commit to practicing for three years in an underserved area. This, too, is a good start, but not enough to eliminate the doctor shortage.
Primary care is an important foundational piece of the future of health care in this country, and more must be done to ensure there are enough doctors to provide it.
Editorial:
