Kansas City Star, March 3
What if the doctors you see for various health issues could know what medications you’ve been prescribed?
They could tell if perhaps you’ve been going doctor to doctor, gathering up pills for an assortment of ailments, possibly fueling an addiction.
They already have this authority. Patients routinely agree to such information-sharing as a part of their appointments. And wise patients want doctors to have such essential information so that the most effective medications can be prescribed, free of worry about negative drug interactions or over-prescribing.
Every other state except Missouri also takes an additional step. Forty-nine states have initiated programs to help doctors and pharmacists track this prescription information by keeping it up to date and accessible in encrypted databases.
Missouri is the only state in the nation that has not launched a prescription drug monitoring system. It’s a glaring lack of oversight and a gaping hole in the state’s health care safety net. Missouri’s inaction is inexcusable amid the rise in prescription drug overdoses, which are now considered an epidemic by national health experts.
Missouri is where addicts come to circumvent monitoring systems elsewhere. It’s a heck of a thing to gain notoriety for, pushing people toward a possible overdose.
But with lawmakers’ help, this could soon change. Momentum is building to pass a bill that would allow Missouri to join the same system used in more than 40 other states.
It’s called Appriss. The company was founded in 1994 and has evolved into a global enterprise, helping pharmacies track over-the-counter sales of cold medicine to combat methamphetamine addiction. In 2013, Appriss linked with the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy to launch a program to address prescription drug abuse.
States’ use of the system varies, but in many cases, algorithms are used to send notifications to pharmacists and doctors when a person in their care has hit a specific number of prescriptions for certain addictive medications. Those flags are not attached to a patient name, said Rep. Holly Rehder, a Republican of Sikeston and a sponsor of House Bill 90.
With such safeguards in place to protect patient privacy, it’s time for Missouri legislators to act at long last and establish a statewide prescription drug monitoring system.
___
Columbia Daily Tribune, March 3
The new president of the University of Missouri System takes office at a time when the institution is recovering from the most tumultuous period in its recent life. UM has been operating with an interim president, and echoes of harsh criticism are just now abating. With so much berating of UM management loose on the land, skeptics wondered if it would be possible to attract good applicants for the top job.
Those who have had the most interaction with Mun Choi, who assumed the office earlier this week, are pleased.
The former provost of the University of Connecticut is making friends with members of the state legislature who are on their way to adopting budget cuts for the university. The day before he officially took office in University Hall, Choi told lawmakers gathered at the annual UM Legislative Day at the
Capitol that he recognizes the imperatives of the state budget he is receiving and will work hard to respond with spending reductions and revenue increases from other sources.
From a broad perspective, the situation facing Choi is about as good as one could expect. The budget cuts imposed by Gov. Eric Greitens are the result of revenue shortfalls affecting the entire state budget, not merely aimed at the university. Higher education is one of the largest discretionary spending segments available for jiggering by the legislature and governor. They seem to have conscientiously preserved as much UM funding as they could. Perhaps the conservative majority in Jefferson City believes it has belabored the institution enough, particularly the flagship Columbia campus.
So it’s a new day at the university, a perfect time for a new leader to come aboard bearing no baggage from the past and able, even obliged, to focus entirely on the future.
By all accounts, President Choi is setting the right tone. His demeanor and commentary are pleasing everyone he meets, an attribute particularly valuable as he makes his initial way through the Capitol thickets.
But despite our preoccupation with external politics, the main job of the UM president is to manage a large, complex and, let us pray, improving institution of higher education. UM actually has a lot going for it, particularly in areas of scientific research and development compatible with Choi’s background. He will not need educating on the value of the university’s research reactor. He knows Interim MU Chancellor Hank Foley, who shares his scientific background. Choi should be a quick starter in fulfilling one of the key roles of the university.
And Mun Choi comes from an academic background. The past two presidents from the world of business injected a valuable perspective, and now it’s time for a leader with direct higher education experience. In addition, Choi brings an aura of pragmatism and political savvy. He will get along as well in Jefferson City as any UM president. Now he enters the challenging fields of UM academe, a curious environment he is well equipped to navigate by past experience. He will be required by circumstances to make some tough internal campus budget decisions. The institution can be better for it.
___
St. Joseph News-Press, March 4
The prized convenience of Kansas City’s airport is magnified for North Kansas City suburbs and nearby outlying communities like St. Joseph and Atchison.
Not only do we enjoy dropping off passengers within a few feet of their boarding gates, but also we appreciate our roundtrips to the airport are relatively short and avoid all of the congestion of the city.
People who live north of Kansas City need to remember these things. Preserving our remarkable access to an international airport should rank at the top of our priorities.
Does this mean we willingly should trade our familiar and convenient airport design for a mammoth single terminal - just to keep the airport north of the river? Will we have any say in the matter?
These are big questions that become relevant with the recent disclosure civic leaders in Johnson County, Kansas, and Gov. Sam Brownback are exploring options for building an airport to rival KCI.
This prospect is by no means likely, but it is one that needs to be taken seriously.
Yes, a new Kansas airport could cost billions - perhaps twice what it will take to renovate or replace KCI’s terminals. And yes, a new airport normally takes years of planning and complicated coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.
Still, the mere fact Kansas officials are exploring this idea is a shock to the system and to Missouri officials who recognize our airport needs improvements - if not capitulation to a single-terminal design.
As events unfold, we will see the airlines have a lot of clout, civic leaders in Kansas City will be desperate to turn back the Kansas threat, and U.S. Rep. Sam Graves could prove to be an effective mediator with his influence over transportation funding and policy.
Let’s hope so.
The last thing we need to see is the estimated 60,000 jobs attributed to KCI move south of the city and across the state line.
A close second would be losing convenient access to an airport that adds to the vitality of our regional communities.
___
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 5
Medical professionals have the right to protect people - that’s what a federal appeals court in Florida unanimously ruled on Feb. 16 when it said doctors can’t be penalized for discussing gun safety with their patients. It was a well-deserved comeuppance for the gun lobby and its latest ploy to pit Second Amendment rights against the First Amendment. They sought to muzzle doctors when they talked to their patients about gun safety, but the court didn’t buy the argument.
Lawmakers in Florida had passed a state law in 2011 that threatened to rescind doctors’ licenses and impose fines if they asked patients simple questions about weapons storage. But doctors, and especially pediatricians, regularly discuss safety surrounding guns, pools and other important health-related issues with their patients.
In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics encourages pediatricians to discuss firearm safety with their patients. One in three American homes with children have guns, and 1.7 million kids live in homes with loaded firearms. It’s the reasonable thing to do, and absolutely in keeping with the medical profession’s mission to protect and sustain human life. Gun accidents are a leading cause of child deaths, and when doctors make recommendations, their patients are three times more likely to safely store their guns.
Besides, any attempt to block free speech, as the Florida measure attempted to do, represents a clear violation of a doctor’s First Amendment rights. Since Florida passed its gag law, 10 other states have tried and failed to pass their own bills. Some, though, did manage to pass other measures that stand in between the doctor-patient relationship.
Missouri in 2014 passed a bill making it more difficult for doctors to ask patients about firearm safety but falling short of an outright gag order. Gun safety groups say the law nevertheless helps stifle doctor-patient discussions about guns. A 2016 study by the Washington University School of Medicine showed that only 13 percent of families were asked by their pediatricians about household firearms. The report’s researchers found that laws like Missouri’s and Florida’s “have likely increased physicians’ uncertainty about what they can say and their concern that discussing the topic may be received negatively.”
Almost three-quarters of gun-owning parents surveyed by the Washington University researchers say they want their kids’ physicians to advise them about household gun safety.
The National Rifle Association suggests that such doctor-patient discussions impinge on gun owners’ privacy, which is an absurd notion. Every patient has a right to tell the doctor to mind his or her own business. But the conversation could cause gun owners to think twice before carelessly leaving a gun where a child could access it. If it’s a question between privacy and saving lives, the latter priority should prevail every time.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.