Letters to the Editor is a periodic feature. We welcome all comments and will publish a selection. We edit for length and clarity and require full names.

Not-So-Great Healthcare

Why doesn’t world-class medicine produce world-class health?

Hayat Norimine’s reporting gets at something that has bothered me for a long time about American healthcare (Priced Out: “As Health Insurance Costs Soar, Healthcare Workers Also Feel the Pinch,” Sept. 22).

We are very proud of U.S. medicine, and we should be. We are at the forefront of new treatments, our clinician workforce is unmatched, and we deploy technologies that seemed impossible just a few years ago. Yet we are in the middle of the pack compared with other countries, in terms of healthy lifespan and many markers of quality care.

At the same time, the cost of accessing care has become outrageously high. When clinicians stop getting health insurance for themselves and their families, you know something is deeply broken.

What good is our health system if most people cannot afford to use it?

One family in Norimine’s story went without insurance when their premiums climbed. Another person kept her coverage but waited weeks to see a doctor because of a $10,000 deductible. These are different problems, but both expose the distance between the care we can provide and the care people can actually access.

Insurance is supposed to help people get the care they need to stay healthy, not just when they are at death’s door. Yet the way insurance is designed can discourage someone from seeing a clinician early, filling a prescription, or following up before a problem gets worse. A clinician may say, “This is what you should do next,” while a person’s coverage gives them a reason to wait or decline.

That tension is not an accident. It is how the system was built. Doctors design care. Insurers design coverage. The two are put together in separate rooms by different teams, measured on different things, then handed to the same person as if they were one plan. No physician would design a $10,000 deductible; it just blocks people from investing in prevention and getting care early. But no physician was in the room when that threshold was set.

Making coverage affordable is essential. So is asking what that coverage enables people to do. If better health is the goal, the people responsible for a person’s health need a hand in shaping what their coverage pays for and when. Design coverage and care together, and it gets easier for people to get the care we know works while avoiding waste.

— Clay Johnston; Austin, Texas

On Dementia, Violence, and Sedation

Reading “Drugs Are Widely Used To Sedate Dementia Patients. Her Sons Wanted To Keep Her Off Them” (Sept. 30) inspired me to share my own experience.

My husband died of dementia about two years ago at age 86. It was not an easy journey. Dementia made him agitated for the same reason it does to others: People with dementia cannot tolerate being told “no.”

So when I had to tell him to stop driving, he became violent. I was told by an eldercare specialist that if my husband remained at home, he might kill me. So it was off to a memory care center, a really good and really expensive one. And he became violent and agitated there because he couldn’t come home, which was what he wanted, and which I could not safely handle. I was also aware that if he couldn’t make it at the memory care center, there was virtually no other place that would take him.

So did I say yes to medication? I did indeed. Even with the antipsychotic, my husband would become out of control. He often tried to “abscond,” as they say in memory-care speak. I also paid through the nose for one-on-one care, which kept him sort of safe. But one night, he fell in the bathroom and broke his hip. A hip replacement was suggested. He was suffering, he had absolutely no quality of life, and I turned the offer down. He was transferred to palliative care and died peacefully about five days later.

There is no solution to this problem that I can see other than medical aid in dying, which he probably would have refused. Me — I will not refuse. My current terror is that I might do this to my remaining family.

— Nora Staffanell; Monroe, New York

The issue is appropriate treatment, not simply drug avoidance.

Jordan Rau’s report rightly highlights the danger of using sedating medications simply to make people with dementia easier to manage. But inappropriate chemical restraint should not be confused with medically appropriate treatment of serious neuropsychiatric symptoms.

Psychosis, agitation, and aggression are distinct. Before prescribing medication, clinicians should identify the target symptom and look for reversible contributors such as pain, infection, medication effects, constipation, sleep disruption, sensory impairment, fear, environmental overstimulation, or the way personal care is being delivered.

Nonpharmacological, person-centered interventions should generally come first. The American Psychiatric Association recommends antipsychotics, outside of emergencies, only when agitation or psychosis is severe, dangerous, or causes substantial distress and after nonpharmacologic approaches have been assessed. When used, treatment should begin at a low dose and aim for the minimum effective dose.

However, nonpharmacological measures do not always suffice. In 2026, the APA reaffirmed that antipsychotics can benefit some older adults with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia when used judiciously within a comprehensive treatment plan. Brexpiprazole, for example, received FDA approval in 2023 for agitation associated with Alzheimer’s dementia.

These drugs carry real risks, including increased mortality, sedation, orthostasis, extrapyramidal symptoms, cerebrovascular events, and falls. But untreated severe agitation or aggression also carries risks: distress, injury, emergency transfers, hospitalization, caregiver breakdown, and loss of placement.

The responsible question is therefore not whether antipsychotics are dangerous, but whether, for a particular patient and target symptom, likely benefits outweigh risks after reversible causes and nonpharmacological measures have been addressed.

Good dementia care means neither reflexive prescribing nor reflexive withholding. It means careful diagnosis, person-centered care, informed risk-benefit discussion, lowest effective dosing, close monitoring, and periodic attempts to reduce or discontinue medication when appropriate.

— James Ellison; Philadelphia

Decoding ER Bills

Autumn Daniels was billed $410 for an emergency room visit in which no clinician evaluated her (Bill of the Month: “She Left After Waiting Hours in the Emergency Room. The ER Billed Her Anyway,” Sept. 29). She received registration, vital signs, and a single question, then sat in the waiting room for four hours and left.

Carle Health billed CPT code 99281, an evaluation and management service. The American Medical Association’s CPT guidelines, quoted in your article, state that triage alone is not an evaluation and management service and cannot be reported with that code. Carle’s own email confirms the problem by defining “care” to include registration and nursing assessment. That’s triage under another name.

Billing for a service that was not performed is the most important reason insurers deny hospital claims, and it’s what physicians are trained to recognize as fraud. Daniels’ insurer denied the claim under “against medical advice,” a label that cannot apply to a patient no clinician ever saw. The right response is a written refusal to pay, addressed to the hospital, stating that the billed service was never rendered.

I spent 20 years in clinical medicine and over a decade as a health insurance medical director reviewing exactly this question. Daniels should owe nothing.

— Virgie Bright Ellington; New Rochelle, New York

This article goes much deeper than simply exploring lack of treatment in the emergency room. It’s about callous treatment, which is unacceptable on many levels. The ER provided poor care and wasn’t busy, but because the unseen patient was only feeling unwell and not bleeding from every orifice, she wasn’t taken seriously as a priority, so she left. Yet despite not being seen by a doctor, a miscellaneous bill — over $400 — was submitted for payment.

What is pain anyway — feeling uncomfortable? Pain is people dying from triggers in the body. Therefore, treating people like a business by these corporate hospitals is extremely concerning. A person feeling ill, receiving no treatment after four hours of waiting, then leaving the ER with a chronic headache  — which could be anything from a brain injury, an upcoming stroke, or a hemorrhage — should not be charged. And certainly a miscellaneous code should not have been applied for the pleasure of pain, waiting, and the five minutes it took to take her temperature.

No, the insurance company should not pay, and it should also let the hospital know that it will be booted from the network for false claims — spending less-than-adequate time with a patient and then submitting bills.

Laws need to be mandated, and advocates must demand optimum care, with healthcare providers abiding by the Hippocratic oath.

People are not stick figures to be treated carelessly and then charged fully. Every time a baseless claim is submitted by the hospital to the insurance company, there’s a trickle-down effect, and rates go up.

It’s akin to being charged for walking on the sidewalk outside a grocery store, checking the fruit stands, getting help from the outside clerk, and then being charged by the store — despite not making a purchase.

Bad service serves no one and will backfire on the provider in the end. How many times do we have to check management at the door for not understanding that very concept? Far too often. We need to show that medical disregard and abuse are not tolerated. It’s essential to pursue change at the federal and state level. Why? Because, ultimately, hospitals are taking advantage of people. They’ve forgotten why they exist.

— Tiff Gadison; Sacramento, California

Living Under the Government’s Thumb

It’s not a good feeling to know that the government has the upper hand and pulls the strings (Health Hub: “Sticker Shock at the Doctor’s Office Could Motivate Midterm Voters,” Sept. 18). Here it is, 2026, and this single mother still struggles — but even more so with talks of cuts and funding to programs I and so many others depend on.

I was interviewed back in November 2018 about an absurd medical bill I received and was expected to pay, even though I have Medicare and Medicaid. Jay Hancock wrote my story, which aired on All Things Considered (Bill of the Month: “Chronically Ill, Traumatically Billed: The $123,000 Medicine for MS,” Nov. 28, 2018). It also appeared on CBS Mornings with Gayle King.

Things definitely haven’t gotten any better for me. I worry about not only my health insurance and my medication but the fact I am on permanent disability. The state of the nation under the current administration is pretty frightening. My Social Security/SSI is my only means of getting by. I receive EBT (electronic benefits transfer for food assistance), and I have a family to feed. I live in government-subsidized housing, based on my income. So pretty much my whole life is controlled by the actions of folks who probably have zero clue how it is to live on a fixed income and with a chronic health condition, one in which stress exacerbates the symptoms, as well as being a single parent.

Don’t even mention being able to afford the price of gas; my car will sit more than go now. I have to pick and choose when to run errands, usually on a day I already have a scheduled appointment. That not only causes me lots of anxiety, but the fatigue is relentless! This is a very stressful, unnerving way to live.

— Shereese Hickson; Niles, Ohio

Uniting for Good

I’m writing on behalf of students with the American Lung Cancer Screening Initiative (ALCSI). Our team recently came across Noam N. Levey’s Common Ground article “‘Cancer Doesn’t Care’: Citizen Lobbyists Unite To Push Past Washington’s Ugly Politics” (Oct. 21, 2025), and its message about cancer bringing people together across political divides strongly resonated with our team.

I wanted to share a recent development in California that reflects a similar idea. A lung cancer screening awareness bill that began as an idea from a small group of California college students was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 28, after receiving support from legislators of both parties.

As students passionate about lung cancer screening awareness, our team began exploring legislative action to improve screening rates. In March 2025, we developed the initial proposal that ultimately became California SB 1124 and continued advocating for the bill throughout the legislative process until it was signed into law.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Screening can catch the disease at an earlier, more treatable stage, but many people eligible for lung cancer screening don’t know they qualify or that screening is available to them. SB 1124 addresses that gap by requiring tobacco retailers across California to post signage about lung cancer screening at the point of sale, reaching people where they already are rather than relying on them to seek out the information. Considering that California has historically been one of the states with the lowest lung cancer screening rates, this action is crucial.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Bob Archuleta (D–Pico Rivera). Through grassroots outreach, students involved with this bill initiative helped build a coalition of support from organizations across California and the country, including the California Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Surgeons, and the NAACP California Hawai‘i State Conference, among dozens of others.

Our experience really echoed what stood out to us in Levey’s article: that cancer can bring together people who may disagree on plenty of other issues. We also hope our experience shows that young people can have a meaningful voice in that process and contribute to bringing people together around a shared public health goal.

— Elaine Dong; Los Angeles