Sexual harassment cover was offensive I found the cover image of your recent issue (“Sexual Harassment: Part of the Job?” Dec. 11, 2014) so offensive and indecent that I curbed my vehicle and immediately returned it to the distribution box. I assume the issue will remain free for the taking and on open display for an entire week! Those who are not mature enough to understand the topic do not need to imprint this image of a sexual violation. Really, who needs this? Gideon Morse Amherst Hunting perpetuates a violent society As a long-time reader of the Valley Advocate — I look forward each week to the latest edition — I have to tell you how disappointed and offended I am to learn about your love of killing innocent creatures (“Why I Hunt” by Tom Vannah Dec. 4, 2014). Clearly, you have bought into the hunting myth, but it is obvious to me that in order to kill someone who has done you no harm and posed you no threat, you have to completely desensitize yourself to another’s feelings, as well as close down your own. This is usually done by objectifying and commodifying that being in one’s mind instead of viewing him/her as a sensitive, thinking, feeling creature who wants to live no less than you do. This process is what perpetuates a violent society, and shooting an unarmed other, is a bully’s act. I am truly sorry that you have revealed yourself to be a bully and a killer. Batya Bauman Amherst Graphic doesn’t tell whole story Amanda Drane’s story, “Not So Simple: Comparing medical procedure prices is supposed to be easy under a new law — it isn’t” (Dec. 4, 2014), highlights a real danger in looking at only one treatment cost estimator, not to mention a disservice to highlight those rates for specific procedures in a bold publication graphic with the lead phrase “At local hospitals …” (as the Advocate did in the print version of this story). Hospitals have widely different rates for the same procedure with a larger number of payers — multiple health insurance companies, government-subsidized health insurance, workers comp and not to mention self-pay rates. While the rates you show are likely the rates Tufts pays for their patients, it is certainly not the average of what each hospital charges for the CT scans, nor what say a Blue Cross, Health New England, or Neighborhood Health plan pays. Hospitals sign contracts with each payer, and they often have better prices for the insurers that bring higher patient volume. And within each estimator, it’s possible for a health plan to have different contracted rates among their separate health plans. So the rates Amanda saw through her login could have been just for the plan she logged in under, and not necessarily what other Tufts members could pay. By stating in your graphic, “At local hospitals …” and compounding the problem by failing to note the sole source of the rates, you left most readers who were just skimming the pages with the wrong impression about which hospitals have better rates. While you explain your sole source in the story, the reader who is skimming pages rather than reading stories is left with the impression that all head CT scans at Noble are $705. Since less than 5 percent of patients who use Noble have Tufts, the $705 (if the database is accurate) misrepresents what someone from Health New England or Blue Cross pays, since those plans have much higher patient volumes at Noble. You wouldn’t do a story on buying paint, and then post a graphic with paint prices only from Walmart without noting the source. As you point out in your story, the devil is in the details, not only for deciphering hospital charges, but in properly citing sources of information as well. Todd Lever West Springfield
