Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Expand scope of care
by nurse practitioners
Re. “Nurse practitioners can ease our shortage of doctors,” Page A16, April 10:
The American health care system must improve access to primary care and provide cost-effective options. These issues can be addressed through the expansion of nurse practitioners’ scope of practice.
Nearly 8 million Californians reside in an area where there is a shortage of primary-care physicians. California is one of the 25 states in our country that bars nurse practitioners from providing “full practice.” According to the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, nurse practitioners provide equivalent medical care at a lower cost than physicians. Expanding the scope of practice of nurse practitioners will increase access to primary care and lessen medical debt.
The American Medical Association doesn’t support the expansion of nurse practitioners’ scope of practice for its own economic benefit, even if that change means that access to care would increase. Patients’ conditions will worsen as delays in access to primary care increase and result in an increase in patients requiring acute care in hospital settings with worse prognoses.
Alexandra Shelley
Cupertino
Return to offices may
be better than we think
Re. “The ‘Great Resignation’ still roiling Bay Area jobs,” Page A1, March 27:
To anyone with anxiety about returning to work, I was there with you – fear of (insert your dilemma here).
My recently IPO’d tech company is returning to the office (3rd Street, San Francisco to be exact). I live at the base of Mt. Umunhum. First and foremost on behalf of all Gen Xers, huge shout out and thanks to the Millennials for reminding us that it’s OK to be ourselves at work. I love wearing my Jordans to work versus some random pair of dress shoes.
If your organization has designed your return to work with discretion and some level of flexibility, it’s much more enjoyable than you can possibly imagine. My advice, give it a shot, then decide if it works for you. You just might be surprised. People will be kinder in real life than you can imagine.
Akeem Mostamandy
San Jose
Chief too quick to defend
police shooting of hero
Re. “San Jose facing lawsuit over police shooting,” Page B1, April 8:
K’aun Green is a hero. He disarmed someone with a gun but was shot when the police showed up. They say he was pointing it at others and didn’t drop it when ordered. He says they gave him no time to.
Having seen stories like this play out before, I’ve spotted a pattern. When the chief of police immediately states his officers acted responsibly, look out. It’s a sign that he or she is afraid that anything less will result in a mutiny among the ranks. And that means it’s a culture that refuses to be held accountable.
I hope that’s not the case here, but the story already cited video evidence contradicting the police account. But it seems the chief of police couldn’t wait for the evidence before defending the shooting.
Todd Lowenstein
San Jose
PG&E top exec’s pay
should be regulated
Re. “PG&E top boss’s pay package tops $50M,” Page B1, April 8:
Unlike many businesses where one has the option of choosing a competing company if service or price is a problem, PG&E has a monopoly on our gas and electric service. Now I see that their top executives are getting huge monetary benefits.
I thought public utilities were regulated. Doesn’t the PUC or our elected officials have the right to say that utility customers shouldn’t be forced to pay for these excessive benefits? Apparently, there isn’t much oversight, and PG&E can increase our bills and burn our towns with impunity, while their top executives carry bags of cash to the bank.
Meade Fischer
Soquel
Irony in right trying
control people’s bodies
“It’s your body and your choice!” is still ringing in my ears and those same people who resisted the vaccine are the ones banning abortion and criminalizing transgender medication and procedures. That this glaring irony escapes not only some of the general public but also state legislatures is beyond me.
How do we deal with those who want to demand exemption and individual choice for themselves, but deny them to others? How can we deal with people who ignore the general good yet think they are protecting it at the same time? And most insidious, they claim to be acting according to God’s will. In their self-righteousness, they ignore the Supreme Court’s constitutional interpretations of the First Amendment that separates church and state so that one’s religious convictions can not be imposed on others.
Claudia Parker
San Jose
Source: www.mercurynews.com