Chiropractor provision was fully discussed

Facts are missing from your overall reporting of the Jim Black chiropractic co-pay issue and Ruth Sheehan's Feb. 22 column "The pain moved to my purse."

You've implied that this was a new law, snuck in and not subject to normal scrutiny -- all false. The 2005 co-pay legislation didn't create a new statute, but was a one-sentence amendment to a 1965 state law enacted to guarantee consumer choice in health care selection. The amendment simply stated that co-pays for chiropractic visits cannot exceed co-pays for similar M.D. visits -- necessary because unfair discrepancies persisted. Before legislation, chiropractic patients often were charged up to five times more co-pay than M.D. patients with similar conditions.

This amendment was fully discussed with all stakeholders, including Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which communicated extensively with chiropractic representatives before the amendment passed.

Sheehan's column reported that Blue Cross cites significantly higher insurance costs related to co-pay equity. But the legislation hasn't even been in effect for one calendar year, so those increases are based on estimations.

Blue Cross and other carriers will enjoy a huge windfall at the expense of health care consumers if co-pay legislation is repealed. Patients already pay increased premiums for co-pay equity that may not stand, and their co-payments will rise if legislation is voided.

I proudly represent the Chiropractic Association, which had nothing to do with the alleged misconduct of three chiropractors. The purported activities of a few should not reflect on the 1,000 chiropractic physicians providing invaluable health care for consumers across North Carolina.

Dr. R. Todd Shaver

President, Board of Directors

N.C. Chiropractic Association

Wilmington

Editor's note: The length limt on letters was waived to permit a fuller response. As reported in news articles, Black inserted into the state budget bill a provision limiting chiropractic patients' co-payments. The provision became law when the budget was enacted. Sheehan referred to the provision as a "change" in state law slipped into the budget by the speaker.