• Revenue Cycle Management
  • COVID-19
  • Reimbursement
  • Diabetes Awareness Month
  • Risk Management
  • Patient Retention
  • Staffing
  • Medical Economics® 100th Anniversary
  • Coding and documentation
  • Business of Endocrinology
  • Telehealth
  • Physicians Financial News
  • Cybersecurity
  • Cardiovascular Clinical Consult
  • Locum Tenens, brought to you by LocumLife®
  • Weight Management
  • Business of Women's Health
  • Practice Efficiency
  • Finance and Wealth
  • EHRs
  • Remote Patient Monitoring
  • Sponsored Webinars
  • Medical Technology
  • Billing and collections
  • Acute Pain Management
  • Exclusive Content
  • Value-based Care
  • Business of Pediatrics
  • Concierge Medicine 2.0 by Castle Connolly Private Health Partners
  • Practice Growth
  • Concierge Medicine
  • Business of Cardiology
  • Implementing the Topcon Ocular Telehealth Platform
  • Malpractice
  • Influenza
  • Sexual Health
  • Chronic Conditions
  • Technology
  • Legal and Policy
  • Money
  • Opinion
  • Vaccines
  • Practice Management
  • Patient Relations
  • Careers

Letters to the Editors


PPOs are not "managed care", Is the AMA the ultimate political authority? Don't get clipped by hedge funds


Letters to the Editors

Jump to:
Choose article section...PPOs are not "managed care" Is the AMA the ultimate political authority? Don't get clipped by hedge funds Correction

PPOs are not "managed care"

Your Dec. 4 cover story could go a long way toward demoralizing the strong resistance to HMOs that is developing in this country. Perhaps that's the intent.

The article lumps preferred provider organizations with HMOs. This is specious at best. There's simply no similarity between discounted fee-for-service and capitated care. The latter is wrong on principle.

Karl Sandberg, MD Ola, AR

Is the AMA the ultimate political authority?

In Wayne Guglielmo's last-minute election article ["Election 2000: Will doctors desert the GOP?" Oct. 23] it's gratuitous to use the AMA's political action committee contributions as evidence of physicians' political leanings, given that the AMA now represents less than half of American physicians.

Guglielmo also assumes that most physicians favor the Dingell-Norwood Patient Bill of Rights, and that because Republicans stopped the bill, physicians want them to pay. Does he believe we doctors want a bill that brings us back to the days of indiscriminate medical spending, when every headache sufferer could get an MRI?

We don't need Dingell-Norwood. Expenditures on health care are already 14 percent of our GDP. To date, HMOs are the only force that has stopped that percentage from growing.

If Guglielmo wants us to swallow all this, he ought to show us real evidence that doctors are abandoning the GOP, in the form of contributions by physicians to the parties, or statistical surveys of doctors' votes.

Don J. Woodhouse, MDWebster City, IA djwood@netins.net

Editor's Note: The American Medical Association's data come from state medical societies, which collectively have a more sizable membership than the AMA and more accurate figures on physicians' voting preferences. The AMA's Political Action Committee (AMPAC) makes direct contributions to national candidates, but it relies on recommendations from state chapters.

Don't get clipped by hedge funds

In your article, "Investing for thrills" [Nov. 20], financial adviser Jay Freeberg warns investors that hedge funds are "unsuitable for any currently taxed accounts, so use [them] only within your retirement plan."

The problem with that advice is that hedge funds use leverage in order to increase their returns. Some or all of that money will be taxable as unrelated business income. Any money subsequently withdrawn from the plan will be taxed again, regardless of any previously paid tax. There would have to be a compelling reason to subject a tax-deferred account to current levies, especially when that would result in double taxation.

James E. Maier, CPA, PFSFIS AssociatesKnoxville, TNjmaier@fisassoc.com

Editor's Note: Hedge fund returns within an Individual Retirement Account aren't taxable as unrelated business income.


The author of the article on page 89 of our Jan. 8 issue is incorrectly listed as Jonathan A. Vanek, a pathologist. He's actually John A. Vanek, a radiologist in Oberlin, OH.


Edited by Gail Weiss,
Senior Editor


Address correspondence to Letters Editor, Medical Economics magazine, 5 Paragon Drive, Montvale, NJ 07645-1742. Or e-mail your comments to meletters@medec.com, or fax them to 201-722-2688. Include your address and daytime phone number. Letters may be edited for length and style. Unless you specify otherwise, we'll assume your letter is for publication. Also, let us know if you don't want your e-mail address printed with your letter.


Gail Weiss. Letters to the Editors. Medical Economics 2001;3:11.

Related Videos