Larry Scott
New Mexico Senate District 42

The word crisis is one that is overused these days when discussing public policy. I’m going to attempt here a factual discussion on the medical issues facing our New Mexico citizens and let you decide whether or not these rise to the level of a “crisis.”

Most estimates indicate that the State is lacking some 300 primary care physicians to meet the accepted (no shortage) ratio of 1 physician per 1500 people. This has resulted in wait times to see a PCP increasing from 2-5 weeks in 2016 to now 2-4 MONTHS in some areas of the State. The problem gets much worse when specialty physicians are included in the number as one estimate had over 2200 positions open in the 2024 job market.

Why the shortage? Several factors are in play. One of the most significant is New Mexico’s medical malpractice environment. We have among the highest malpractice claim ratios in the nation resulting in impossibly high insurance premiums. I was told by a Texas specialist recently who had started his career in Santa Fe that a malpractice claim, in a case where a professional board had completely exonerated him from any liability, dragged on for years. New Mexico law encourages litigating every misstep with the promise of large payouts if suits are successful. We are an outlier in this regard with our neighboring states making the decision to go elsewhere pretty much “open and shut.” Another factor is the low retention rate of physicians educated here. Only about half choose to remain in the state and it’s easy to see why. A third issue is our relatively low rates for Medicaid reimbursements. Almost half our population utilizes this government sponsored program. Medicaid reimbursements are generally accepted to payout only about 60% of what the private insurance market is willing to pay. If the private pay rates are those reasonably necessary to keep doctors in business, the math would seem to indicate that private markets have to make up the difference, that is, half the folks on private pay need to shoulder 70% of the burden of keeping our medical community whole. One of the consequences here is that medical insurance in the private market is more expensive than it might otherwise need to be. Fourth, and perhaps most concerning for the future, is the fact that over 40% of the doctors in the state are over 60 years old and expected to retire by the year 2030. The bottom line is that doctors won’t move here, don’t want to stay here, can’t afford to practice here, and are getting older, in short, a perfect storm.

One other solution that has been proposed in the last few legislative sessions is the prospect of joining medical provider compacts which would allow out of State providers reciprocity with respect to licensing, thereby making it easier for telehealth and other services to come from out of State physicians. These efforts have run aground, again, on the insistence of our legal community that the governing organizations be subject to New Mexico liability law. Another win for the trial lawyers.

Our progressive legislature has, for the last few years, been quietly moving toward a single payer health system in the State in the belief that access to medical care is a ‘right’ that should not be subject to any profit motive. If you like your BeWellNM insurance program, you will love single payer. Most people with an option however do not participate in the State program as it offers a very limited choice of physicians, none apparently who can be located out of the State without a “mother may I” request to State. This is particularly onerous to those in the outlands who acquire quite a bit of their medical care from Texas providers.

We can do better. The problems with New Mexico medical care, or lack thereof, are self-inflicted. Public policy has created the problem, and with the appropriate courage, can fix it. Remember that please the next time you go to the polls to vote.

Larry Scott is a New Mexico senator, representing District 42 which contains parts of Chaves, Eddy and Lea counties.

Cal Thomas

Leave it to a politician to take advantage of a tragedy and attempt to use it for political advantage.

Following the horrific shooting at a Catholic school in Minneapolis that killed two children and wounded 18 others, Mayor Jacob Frey (D) said of the self-proclaimed transgender woman: “Anybody who is using this as an opportunity to villainize our trans community or any other community out there has lost their sense of common humanity. We should not be operating out of a place of hate for anyone.”

It was a shocking comment as parents and others mourn the dead and injured.

The mayor said nothing specific about the shooter’s YouTube postings that contained hatred for Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Catholics and President Trump. The shooter didn’t discriminate when it came to bigotry.

The shooter, whose name I will not use, “Scoffed at religion, idolized the nation’s most notorious mass shooters and fantasized about carrying out a public massacre where children would be at their most vulnerable,” reported The Washington Times. In a hand-written journal posted on YouTube before the shootings, the killer admitted he “was tired of being trans” and wished he “never brain-washed himself,” reported the New York Post. I wonder what Mayor Frey thinks of that?

Sadly, a new school year encourages some people with twisted and evil minds to act out their fantasies and bemoan their station in life by killing the innocent.

As with prior incidents something more can be done to safeguard against future repetitions.

I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, but with a caveat. No one should be allowed to buy a semi-automatic rifle as the one used in Minneapolis without a long waiting period and a complete mental health and background check that includes interviews with parents, relatives and friends. The shooter clearly displayed abnormal behavior. His mother allowed him to legally change his name from male to female and his gender identification. She has reportedly hired a criminal defense attorney.

The killer had two other weapons, all reportedly bought legally. If purchased as a minor (he was 22 at the time of the shootings) a parent likely would have had to sign off on it. Where were the guns kept? If they were not secured, along with ammunition, who is at fault? There are people, including possibly his parents, who witnessed erratic and hateful behavior. Did they report it? If not, why not? If they did and nothing was done, again why?

ABC News reported: “The state has had an Extreme Risk Protection Order law (sometimes referred to as a red flag law) … , since last year, which gives judges the ability to remove a person’s weapons following a petition from select individuals, such as a parent or police officer, who proves they are a risk to others or themselves.”

Why wasn’t it invoked and who is responsible for not invoking it?

Other than making weapons designed to kill humans less easily available, an investment is going to have to be made in greater security. This may include increased police presence or security guards inside and outside schools. It might also include blocking road entrances onto school property with an armed security guard checking everyone seeking admission. Identification badges might also help.

Hotels in some Middle East countries where I’ve stayed do some of this and it has virtually eliminated terrorism and other violent acts. Yes, it would cost money and delays, but how much is a child’s life – or any life worth? If it also serves as a deterrent to the sick of mind who search for soft targets, so much the better.

It’s a safe prediction we will see additional copycat incidents this school year if more – a lot more – is not done. The dead deserve it. So do their parents. So do the living.

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (HumanixBooks).