VIAGRA: Dailies React To DOC Decision
In response to the state Department of Corporations' ruling that Kaiser Permanente must cover Viagra prescriptions, the Sacramento Bee lauds the DOC's "rational approach ... to keep health coverage comprehensive, yet give insurers more financial flexibility when it comes to unique challenges such as Viagra." The paper charges that "[h]ealth plans (many are now losing money) are far more concerned with skirting short-term financial bumps such as Viagra than with embracing the long-term value of comprehensively managing care." The editorial recommends that HMOs treat the overall health of the patient -- including impotence and mental illness -- in order to reap the promised benefits of managed care. "Otherwise," the Bee notes, "we'll end up with a system that manages costs, not care" (1/5).
On The Flip Side
The Los Angeles Times, on the other hand, blasts the DOC for its decision, saying the move "highlights its inability to distinguish between" medically necessary care and "lifestyle enhancing" remedies. The editorial recommends that "Grantland Johnson, the new secretary of Health and Human Services, should convene a panel of physicians, HMO executives and consumer advocates to examine how to better distinguish between lifestyle-enhancing treatments like Viagra and lifesaving care." In addition, "Sacramento should resist legislating expensive new coverage mandates and instead engage all Californians in a debate about which treatments should and should not be covered." The paper cites the DOC's move as an argument for state Sen. Herschel Rosenthal's (D-Los Angeles) bill which would "transfer HMO oversight ... to a new Board of Managed Health Care, specializing in consumer protection" (1/5).