And another thing ...

Health care challenges inspire an array of suggestions

Everyone appears to have ideas about how to put the "heal" in health care.

The Sun's series this week has looked at an assortment of aspects to the current national debate, from the uninsured and overwhelmed to the snarly questions of whether and how to cover the massive costs of comprehensive wellness.

It was no surprise that along the way, some ideas that aren't part of the main discourse came up that also merit some thought.

Twenty-one readers took part in the survey we undertook at the end of September in the hope of drawing local input. All but two of them clipped out the form published in our printed edition and submitted it for inclusion in our research.

The respondents were split almost evenly on the question of digging deeper into their taxpaying pockets to help pay for health care for all. One cautioned, "We need measures to prevent abuse." Several, however, specified that they support breaking down state borders as a way to help bring down costs.

"More competitive insurance companies should be allowed to cross state lines!" wrote e-mail respondent Sarah Gust.

More than one in three said they have been denied coverage for a medical expense.

Often such denials are based on the ailment having been known before the insurer took on responsibility for paying the bills. Many in the health care profession, as well as those in politics and those who are the consumers of health care, think that's wrong.

"We strongly believe that pre-existing conditions needs to be addressed," said Howard Peters, senior vice president for government relations at the Illinois Hospital Association, which is headquartered in Naperville.

It's not at all uncommon for insurance companies drop coverage when they learn patients have a history with a particular medical issue.

"We think that's just a fundamental flaw in health care in the country," Peters said.

Also problematic for the hospital organization are the caps on the care permitted under a policy.

"You're only covered up until the point where you need it most," he said. "It's like you're too sick to get coverage."

According to Peters, the hospital sector nationwide has agreed to accept Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement reductions of $155 billion to help offset the costs of proposed reforms.

"That's to say we put skin in the game ... we put our money where our mouth is, so to speak. But we want in exchange for that meaningful reform," he said, noting that they support the principle of health care for all. "And we certainly know there has to be some subsidies for the government to provide coverage."

There also are significant savings to be found in making processes more efficient. One way to do that is to computerize health data. Although the initial outlays are a substantial expense, especially for small practices, proponents say the long-term cost reductions balance out the investment.

"If you had widespread adoption of electronic medical records, it would be easier to pull that information down," said Naperville health care consultant Scott McKibbin.

U.S. Rep. Bill Foster is resolute in asserting that health care costs cannot be permitted to double, as they have done over the past decade.

"The problem is becoming worse every year — we are spending too much money, and we are insuring too few people. The system is broken, and we have to do something about it," Foster asserts on his Web page.

That something must not include cuts in Medicare benefits for seniors, he insists, adding, "Cut the giveaways to insurance and drug companies instead."

The proposals supported by Foster and his neighboring Republican counterpart, Rep. Judy Biggert, both emphasize doctor choice and a focus on promoting healthy lifestyles and other prevention-related measures.

In all of our interviews, e-mails and other correspondence, we found no support for the status quo.

"By doing nothing, the 'system' can only get worse — and more expensive," wrote 85-year-old reader Elaine Scarborough.