Blue Cross cares most about the green
The following is a Counterpoint:
By Karl Fields
I thought the Second Opinion column by Dr. James Weissman ("Cone-Blue Cross part of larger crisis, "Aug. 29) was very insightful in noting that the greater issue in the Blue Cross and Moses Cone standoff is fair access of all citizens to health care. Many individuals like myself feel that health care should be a right for all.
It was announced recently that North Carolina has 20 percent of its citizens without health insurance. My perspective about the issue is tempered by what I have experienced at Moses Cone hospital.
I have worked at the Family Practice Center there for 23 years. I am not a Moses Cone employee but rather a professor hired by UNC Medical School.
Throughout this period of time, my practice has seen between 40 percent and 60 percent of its patients as either Medicaid recipients or individuals without insurance. Never once has Moses Cone asked us to turn away a patient, regardless of ability to pay or the financial pressures of the institution.
I contrast this with my experience a few years ago when I participated with a group of doctors who spoke to members of the North Carolina legislature to oppose plans that Blue Cross had to privatize the company. The only motivation we could determine was that after four years of record profits, Blue Cross executives could see the potential of a buyout by a larger national insurance company, which would yield multimillion-dollar profits to those in the upper tier of management.
I have trouble believing that Blue Cross cares about fair contracts or premiums when I note the behavior of its executives and the remarkable profit growth they have shown in the past several years.
The writer lives in Greensboro.