"Instead of the present proposal of Government aid to old-age pensioners which might, and rightly so, I think, assume the tag 'socialized medicine,' wouldn't it save much criticism of the President and his plan if he were to allow a substantial tax exemption to heads of households who must support an aged mother-in-law or father while trying to eke out a living in today's highly competitive business world? "Being only 24 years old, I am not directly involved, so there are discrepancies in my plan, i.e., it would not affect pensioners who are not dependent on a relative for direct and possibly total support (however, I believe a plan can be worked out to help these people) but even though I'm not an interested party. I do feel that if the President's plan is adopted, this would be another step away from our free enterprise system of democracy and toward socialism, a type of government that, I feel, is not best suited to freedom-loving Americans, of any "Thank you for considering the views of the public on this matter. "Sincerely, age. "WILLIAM L. BOWEN.” Above communication received by Harry L. Stuver, from William L. Bowen Apartment 1, 235 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, Calif., in response to an airways broadcast over KCBS on Thursday evening, July 27, 1961, attempting to outline the President's plan and asking for an expression of opinion from the listeners. HARBY L. STUVER. STATEMENT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COMMITTEE FOR HEALTH CARE FOR THE AGEÐ THROUGH SOCIAL SECURITY To promote public understanding of the King-Anderson bill (H.R. 4222), the health insurance benefits bill of 1961, a group of physicians and medical edu cators in the Los Angeles area organized the Southern California Committee for Health Care for the Aged through Social Security. Headquarters were established at 10578 W. Pico Boulevard, in West Los Angeles, where a volunteer staff was prepared to accept requests for speakers, offer information, and prepare literature for mailing. A factsheet explaining the provisions of the bill was printed and sent out to the approximately 5,000 members of the Los Angeles County Medical Association, stressing the fact that there was nothing in the bill that was detrimental to physicians nor to the doctor-patient relationship. With the factsheet went a list of the national organizations supporting the hill and a petition form, urging the members of the House Ways and Means Committee to pass the bill. The form had spaces for about 20 signatures, and more than 20 of these have been filled and sent to Washington. With the factsheet, also, went a form to be signed by those who wished to join the committee and were willing to authorize the use of their signatures. (Copies of all three are enclosed.) Many of these were returned, signed, to the committee However, the committee also received many letters of commendation as well as donations, with the request that the writer's name be withheld. Although announcements of the committee's formation were sent to all de metropolitan newspapers and many of the local weekly papers in the area. press coverage has been limited; some interviews and discussions of the bill and the committee's activities have been seen and heard on local radio and television. The science editor of the Los Angeles Times reported on August 1, that "Fear of reprisal from organized medical groups is responsible for the failure of many doctors to publicly declare themselves in favor of legislation which would put medical care for the aged under the social security system, a local physician said ***" The committee's literature made clear that the philosophy underlying its activities was support of the King-Anderson bill because committee members believed that it was designed to meet a universal human need, adequately. simply, with respect for individual dignity, and with a fiscally sound approach. and because it provides a program that enables the wage-earner to provide for his own future health-care. Considerable public misunderstanding of the provisions of the King-Anderson bill has been engendered and its opponents have had significant advantages in the allotment of prime newspaper space and radio and television coverage. It has been the purpose of the Southern California Committee for Health Care for the Aged through Social Security, by every means available to it, to clarify the issues, document its arguments, contradict the false propaganda, deny the spurious innuendoes and make clear to the medical profession and the general public its firm belief that the King-Anderson bill is the only plan so far presented that offers a satisfactory program for securing health care fo rthe aged. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COMMITTEE FOR HEALTH CARE FOR THE AGED THROUGH SOCIAL SECURITY, Los Angeles, Calif. The retired citizens of our country have greater health care needs than any other segment of the population. They also have far less in resources for meeting these requirements. Until now, no help has been offered them in meeting these oppressive needs adequately and with dignity. The King-Anderson bill, the Health Insurance Benefits Act of 1961 (H.R. 4222), will be debated in the House Ways and Means Committee during the next few weeks. It was designed for the express purpose of helping the aged solve their health care problems in these days of rising costs. Through its provisions Congress would be following the constitutional mandate "to provide for the general welfare." It would fill a universal human need with an approach that is fiscally sound. A recent Gallup poll shows that 67 percent of the population favors this "pay-while-you-earn" solution for the half million elderly who, each year, become dependent on charity because their hospital bills have depleted their savings. The King-Anderson bill does not pay for the services of a private physician. In fact, in no way does it enter the field of the private physician. It provides only for: Full hospital costs (other than the services of a private physician) for up to 90 days, after payments by patient of $10 a day up to 9 days (minimum $20, maximum $90), to discourage unnecessary hospitalization. Costs of skilled nursing home services, following hospitalization, for up to 180 days. Cost of outpatient diagnostic services, including X-ray and laboratory services, after payment by patient of $20. Costs of home health services for up to 240 visits, including nursing care, physical therapy, and part-time homemaker services. The 1961 Health Insurance Benefits Act, therefore, will not in any way interfere with the doctor-patient relationship; not with the patient's choice of physician, not with the patient's choice of hospital, not with the kind of care the physician prescribes. Under this bill all participants in social security will be eligible, automatically, for the benefits (approximately 90 percent of persons over 65, or 141⁄2 million). There would be no costly investigation to determine eligibility, no exhausting of the patient's resources, no pauper's oath before health-care is provided. The costs of the program would be met by a one-fourth of 1 percent increase in the social security rate of both employer and employee (a maximum of $1.05 per month). There would be no drain on any tax funds. Most importantly, this kind of financing would give the senior citizen security and a feeling of selfsufficiency. Wage earners could, in their productive years, provide for their retirement, confident in the knowledge that they would not, in their old age, be a drain on their families or their communities. Because there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the KingAnderson Insurance Benefits Act of 1961, the Southern California Committee for Health Care for the Aged, composed of experts in many interrelated fields concerned, has been organized for the purpose of presenting the facts to the public. The members of the committee would welcome requests for further information and earnestly solicit your support. Mr. LEO H. IRWIN, Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means, Dr. ALICE SHEA, Coordinator. NEWARK YM & YWHA, Newark, NJ., August 8, 1961. DEAR MR. IRWIN: As president of Council Center for Older Adults, I am glad to have this opportunity of presenting the viewpoint of our membership on the vital issue of health insurance for older people. I should also like to request that this statement be printed in the record of the hearings being conducted by the Committee on Ways and Means. On behalf of the 500 men and women 60 years of age and over, who are members of Council Center for Older Adults, I should like to state at the outset that we are completely and wholeheartedly in favor of a health insurance program which would be financed and administered through the social security system. The problem of meeting the rising cost of medical care during the later years of life is a source of the deepest concern and anxiety to older people. In the 14 years since council center was established, this problem has come up time and time again, both in group discussions and in individual conversations. Older people live in constant fear that the cost of medical care and hospitalization will wipe out the savings of a lifetime. The steep in rease in medical costs, particularly hospitalization, 46 percent since 1950, according to statistics published by the Federal Counsel on Aging, has made health insurance a necessity. This is borne out by the rapid growth of voluntary health insurance in this country in recent years. Unfortunately, only a very small proportion of our members have such insurance, nor do they have any other adequate protection against long-term illness. As President Kennedy pointed out in his special message to Congress outlining health plans: "Those among us who are over 65-16 million today in the United States-go to the hospital more often and stay longer than their younger neighbors. Their physical activity is limited by six times as much disability as the rest of the population. Their annual medical bill is twice that of persons under 65—but their annual income is only half as high." I feel certain that the Committee on Ways and Means has all the necessary statistics. Speaking as an older person and as an officer of an older adult organization, I can only stress that the need for a health insurance program is urgent. Further, that it is only through a broad insurance program under social security, that the older person will be able to get adequate health care with dignity and self-respect. There is a fairly sizable proportion of our membership, mostly widows in their seventies and eighties, who are not covered by social security, and are living on a very marginal income. Many of them are subsisting on an income below the public assistance level but try to get along as best they can so as not to become public charges during the last years of their life. I might also add, that the average monthly social security benefit received by our members is quite low, about $70 per month. It is also essential that provision be made for adequate medical care for the large numbers of older people who are not covered by social security. I should only like to add that the board of directors of the Newark YMYWHA, has endorsed the principle of financing medical care for older people through social security and has communicated its views to the Congressmen of Essex County, N.J. Again may I urge on behalf of the members of Council Center for Older Adults that an adequate health insurance program for older people, financed and administered through social security, be reported out favorably by the Committee on Ways and Means. Sincerely yours, JACK GOLDSTEIN, President, Council Center for Older Adults. NEW YORK, N.Y., August 3, 1961. LEE H. IRWIN, Chief Counsel, House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, In re H.R. 4222, hearings on which are now taking place, the National Associa tion of Jewish Homes for the Aged wishes to record its general agreement with the purposes of the bill and offers its support. Our association, however, representing the overwhelming majority of voluntary, nonprofit Jewish homes for the aged in the United States, desires to call your attention to several points which should be clarified. 1. Use of term "nursing homes" may be misleading. We urge change in wording, wherever this appears to institutions, including homes for the aged, which have facilities for nursing care. 2. Under home, health services, place or residence maintained as such individual's homes, should clearly indicate that it includes residence in home for the aged, boarding home, etc. HERBERT A. FELTZER, Executive Director of the Home and Hospital of the Daughters of Jacob, Chairman, Legislative Committee National Association of Jewish Homes for the Aged. COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSOCIATION, Hon. WILBUR MILLS, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: It has come to our attention that the Ways and Means Committee is now planning to hold hearings on H.R. 4222, the so-called Anderson-King bill. This is good news and we urge that the hearings be held at an early date so that the proposed legislation can also be considered by the Senate Finance Committee and the whole matter be brought to issue during the present session of the Congress. Those of us who are engaged in administering a program of comprehensive health services on a group practice-prepayment basis know from our own experience that extremely few elderly persons can afford to purchase broad medical care benefits through this or any other form of voluntary health insurance. It is simply beyond their means to participate in more than a minimal, token plan. Moreover, great stress is placed on those few voluntary plans that have attempted to provide what amounts to about twice as much service to elderly persons as others need, at a cost comparable to what the better risk groups pay. The proposed Anderson-King bill offers promise of solving a major part of the medical care problems faced by aged persons and doing this in both a time-tested and a dignified way. What is proposed bears no resemblance whatsoever to socalled socialized medicine. In fact, the bill provides assurances to both providers and consumers of care that safeguard fully the rights and privileges of all concerned and represent the antithesis of governmental controls. Adequate financing of the segments of care outlined in the bill will furnish a framework for the steady enhancement of the quality of services rather than leading to the reverse situation. To sum up, the proposed legislation has our complete support and we hope you will do what you can to make it possible for the legislation to be considered by the Congress during the present session. Yours sincerely, LEO H. IRWIN, F. D. MOTT, M.D., Executive Director. Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means. BALTIMORE, MD., August 1, 1961. DEAR SIR: In accordance with letter of July 27, 1961, from John R. Martin, Jr., Assistant Chief Counsel, addressed to Hon. George H. Fallon, M.C., I am writing you and requesting you to have this made part of the record and printed in the hearings of H.R. 4222. I was born in New York City on September 10, 1881, and have been a contributor on social security coverage from the time it started. I am retired from business and a recipient of social security. Most of my business career was in the beef and pork packing industry as manager and supervisor of departments and branch houses and plats for the Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Co. and its successors, Sulzberger & Sons, Co., and Wilson & Co., Inc., in New York, Chicago, and Havana, Cuba. If I were to testify I could give you a good many reasons why I think coverage of old-age hospitalization and medical care should be placed under social security financing, regulation, and management. I will however, now just give my reasons why two other methods of coverage proposed are not beneficial or advisable. First, the so-called Kerr-Mills amendment, H.R. 12580. This was adopted and became effective in Maryland on June 1, 1961. This bill which was backed by, and now still is being referred to by the American Medical Association in their advertisements as giving proper relief without embarrassment to the recipient is being administered in Baltimore by the Baltimore City Health Department and the Baltimore City Department of Public Welfare under rules and regulations of the department of public welfare. While these regulations do not require a pauper's oath, they do embarrass a great many applicants whe like myself in the past, did not require the assistance of relatives to pay the present day high medical expenses and now, however, do require it and do get it when needed. Many worthy applicants do not want their relatives bothered and therefore are prevented from getting this benefit to which they are entitled Second, the proposed coverings by private insurance. Some few years ago when the large insurance companies were finally starting to accept 65 years and older for hospitalization and advertising through full-page advertisements this fact, I called on the local agent of one of the largest western companies. (If it is of service I shall be glad to give you the name of the company.) I was told by the agent that the rate quoted was so low that the company was losing money by quoting it and that they and other companies were doing this only to avoid and prevent insurance under social security becoming a law. Under these circumstances I did not take out a policy and I noticed that the rates were subsequently advanced. I later took out a policy with a large national group of senior citizens, who subsequently, guided by the insurance company which underwrote this group policy, tried very hard to switch me to another policy at a higher rate and even sent me the new policy without my having applied for it. I feel that many elder people have had the same or similar experiences and they feel like I do, that private insurance companies do not give them the protection they should have and are only waiting for the time when they can use their influence to raise rates to repay them for their expenses in connection with their campaign to stop social security legislation. I feel that the Social Security Administration has done an outstanding in their present duties and that old-age hospitalization and medical care world be equally well serviced by them. Respectfully submitted, HENRY M. SCHWARZSCHILD. A COMPROMISE PLAN SUGGESTED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO H.R. 4222, HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS ACT OF 1961, BY ROBERT C. HARDY, ADMINISTRATOR, CITY OF MEMPHIS HOSPITALS, MEMPHIS, TENN. President Kennedy's proposal for improved health safeguards would clothe many of the American people in a protective garment of excellent materia The program indicates a high degree of sophistication in the selection of the fabric, but the tailoring of these health measures to the needs of the individ does not exhibit a skill commensurate with the quality of the cloth. Indee some Americans would feel the chill winds of financial disaster because ther had no pants at all, while many others would be required to buy still another suit to hang, unused, in an already overcrowded clothes closet. Almost no opposition has been raised to the administration's ideas for ways to increase the supply of doctors, improve nursing and hospital services, stri up medical research and elevate the level of health of our children and youth The controversy, vigorous and vocal, centers around that portion of the Pres dent's program which would provide, through the mechanism of social security. medical care for persons over 65. The fact that efforts to enact compulsory health insurance legislation bare met defeat repeatedly since President Truman gave his approval to the principle more than a decade ago may forecast further difficulty for the President's ideas even though the administration has returned to the Democratic Party. If th should be the case during the upcoming discussion of health care for the aged in Congress, a compromise which would alter the proposed program, making it acceptable to those who now oppose it while expanding and improving the measure to better fit the requirements of all of the people, may be welcome. Let us examine the specifications of such a compromise. The spirited Reuther-Annis debates broadcast on television gave the im pression that the AFL-CIO position, squarely behind the social security idea. could never be compatible with the aims of the American Medical Association. Closer examination of these opposing views shows that labor and the doctors want many of the same things. For example, the physicians are unwilling to give |