2012 is the beginning of reporting the value of employer-provided health benefits on form W-2 and it may also be the beginning of the end of this tax benefit. There is little logic to continue this massive revenue loss.
Read more on Health Insurance Illuminated.
Tags: Taxing health benefits, W-2
WASHINGTON—Account-based health plans continued to grow in 2011, increasing to $12.4 billion in assets among 8.4 million accounts, according to the latest survey by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and Mathew Greenwald & Associates (MGA). That’s up more than 55 percent in the number of accounts and almost 70 percent in assets since 2010.
This growth comes after a leveling-off of account balances during the recession years of 2008 and 2009, and a slight decline in 2010. The average health account balance was $1,490 in 2011, up 9 percent from 2010.
These and other findings are based on the results of the 2011 EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey, published in the January 2012 EBRI Issue Brief, “Health Savings Accounts and Health Reimbursement Arrangements: Assets, Account Balances, and Rollovers, 2006–2011,” online here.
Employers first started offering account-based health plans in 2001, when a handful of employers began to offer health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), employer-funded health plans that reimburse workers for qualified medical expenses. In 2004, employers were able to start offering health plans with health savings accounts (HSAs), tax-exempt trusts or custodial accounts that individuals can use to pay for health care expenses. The theory behind these accounts is that by giving individuals more control over funds allocated for health care services, they will spend the money more responsibly, especially once they become more educated about the actual price of health services.
The EBRI report notes that by 2010, 16 percent of employers with 10–499 workers and 23 percent of those with 500 or more workers offered either an HRA or HSA-eligible plan. As a result, these plans covered about 21 million people in 2011, representing about 12 percent of the privately insured market.
“As the number of people with account-based plans grows, total assets in these plans can be expected to grow as well,” said Paul Fronstin, director of EBRI’s Health Research and Education Program and author of the report.
Other findings in the EBRI/MGA survey on health accounts:
Rollovers increase: After declining to $1,029 in 2010, the average amount being rolled over from one year to the next increased to $1,208 in 2011. Total assets being rolled over increased as well: $6.7 billion was rolled over in 2011, up from $3.7 billion in 2010.
Differences in rollover amounts: Men rolled over more money than women, and older individuals had higher rollover amounts than younger individuals. Rollover amounts increased with household income and education, and individuals with single coverage rolled over a slightly higher amount than those with family coverage.
Healthy behavior does not mean higher account balances: Individuals who smoke have more money in their accounts than those who do not smoke. In contrast, obese individuals have less money in their accounts than the nonobese. There is very little difference in account balances by level of exercise. Very small differences were found in account balances and rollover amounts between individuals who used cost or quality information, compared with those who did not use such information. However, next to no relationship was found between either account balance or rollover amounts and various cost-conscious behaviors. When a difference was found, those exhibiting the cost-conscious behavior were found to have lower account balances and rollover amounts.
The Employee Benefit Research Institute is a private, nonprofit research institute based in Washington, DC, that focuses on health, savings, retirement, and economic security issues. EBRI does not lobby and does not take policy positions.
Tags: Employee Benefit Research Institute, Health Reimbursement Account, Health savings account
As I am preparing to board a cruise ship, I look around and it is hard to see a fellow traveler under age 65 or perhaps even age 70 or to put it another way there are a large number of Medicare cards on this boat. Then I equate the cost of a cruise with the following. Yeah I know there are a lot of poor elderly, I know that because government stats tell me so. However, those averages miss a lot of people with a lot of money to spend. Hey, why not split a pill if you can do it on a cruise?
1 in 5 Older Americans Cutting Back on Health Care to Save Money
WASHINGTON—More than 20 percent of Americans age 50 or over report saving on health costs by switching to cheaper generic drugs, getting free samples, stopping pills or reducing dosages, and nearly as many skip or postpone doctor appointments for the same reason, according a new report by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI).
The data suggest that spending by those near or in retirement declines to match income, even when it means giving up real needs.
“We know that consumption tends to fall with age, but it’s difficult to measure whether falling consumption is voluntary,” said Sudipto Banerjee of EBRI, author of the study. “However, we found evidence that a significant segment of the older population may be making spending adjustments to their health care in order to save money.”
Specifically, the analysis found that more than 1 in 5 (21.5 percent) households reported that they have made some changes in their prescription drugs to save money, and nearly as many (19.4 percent) said they have either skipped or postponed doctor appointments to do so. More than a quarter of households (27.5 percent) reported difficulty in paying their monthly bills.
The report found that these reductions were almost equally prevalent among households, whether they reported increasing or decreasing their annual spending. Even for those who reported that their spending was unchanged, 16.5 percent reported making prescription drug changes, while 11.7 percent reported skipping or postponing doctor visits to save money.
The study also found that about 1 in 10 of those in excellent health reported skipping or postponing doctor appointments to save money, while more than three times as many (36.5 percent) of those in poor health reported doing so. Similarly, nearly 1 in 3 (29.9 percent) of those in poor health reported making prescription drug changes to save money, which is nearly twice the number of those in excellent health.
Further, the study found that single women and blacks had the highest involuntary spending adjustments: 22.8 per- cent and 24.8 percent of single women made prescription drug changes and skipped or postponed doctor appointments to save money. Comparable numbers for blacks were 25.9 percent and 27.3 percent, respectively.
The study is based on data from the 2009 Internet Survey of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). The full report is published in the January 2012 EBRI Notes, “Spending Adjustments Made By Older Americans to Save Money,” online at www.ebri.org
A word of caution about those “free” preventive health care services mandated by the Affordable Care Act …they may quickly turn from preventive to diagnostic and that means your coinsurance, co-pays and possibly a deductible apply. This can happen for significant procedures but also for a simple office visit.
Read more about this in my post on Health Insurance Illuminated
Is there is a solution to health care costs and quality? Apparently there is a simple solution, just have government – run the entire system, just like Medicare.
The following is from a newspaper in Massachusetts. I guess what MA has already done is insufficient. A State representative has introduced legislation for a single-payer system. Throwing out a few platitudes about quality and affordability sounds good and gets some people excited, but it is hardly effective management of the health care system. There is no evidence that a single payer system makes health care affordable, improves quality or reduces costs (especially without numerous unintended consequences). With regard to Massachusetts, their current system has yet to prove itself beyond expanding coverage – much like the Affordable Care Act.
As I have said many times, when a politician makes outrageous promises, make sure you ask exactly how they will be met.
Last update Dec 31, 2011 @ 04:51 PM
Touting dramatic reductions in health care costs, improved access to health care for all residents and a boost to local businesses, state Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, has filed a bill that would create a single-payer health care system for Massachusetts. The bill, heard by the Joint Committee on Health Care Finance, would establish a universal public insurance plan covering all medically necessary care. This plan would function for residents younger than 65 much the way Medicare does for residents 65 and older, but without premiums or co-payments, according to Eldridge’s office. “If Massachusetts is serious about reducing health care costs for families, businesses and state and local governments, we need to stop tinkering at the edges of a broken system and enact a single-payer healthcare system,” Eldridge said. “It’s the only reform that would truly reduce costs in a substantial way, eliminating medical debt and bankruptcies while guaranteeing access to quality, affordable health care as a right for all residents of the Commonwealth.”
Tags: Single-payer health care
Defense, foreign aid, a bloated bureaucracy don’t matter at all.
The reality is that while we hear lots of rhetoric about debt and deficits, what really matters is long term liabilities. If you don’t believe me consider what happened with General Motors and it’s liabilities to retirees mostly with regard to health benefits. The latest example is Kodak filing bankruptcy during which the promise of retiree health benefits is likely to disappear along with some pension promises for higher paid workers who are affected by income limits on pension funding. Losing a substantial portion of your pension after you have already retired sounds like more than ones fair share to me ( and we are not talking about CEOs).
If you want more examples of this liability thing causing trouble just look to the various states that have agreed to unrealistic pension and health benefit commitments to state workers. And then you look at the results of all this. In Wisconsin the unions have gotten 1,000,000 signatures to force a recall election of the governor who did the right, albeit painful, thing to correct the State’s problems.
What is the most significant problem affecting the U.S., it is the same as I have just described above; long term liabilities for health care first and pensions second. That means Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but mostly Medicare.
So now the question is what will you do for the politician who tells you the truth (assuming you can find one)? Chances are you won’t vote for him because it is far easier to ignore a long term problem than deal with it. It is more abstract to believe foreign aid is the culprit than something that affects you directly. It is less stressful to agree with a politician who claims to have a solution while leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched.
The difficult part is accepting the truth. The U.S. has made open ended, demographic based commitments that it can’t control and can’t pay for. Twenty to thirty years from now there will be hell to pay. The longer it takes to implement corrective action the worse it will be… and that’s the truth like it or not
Tags: Long-term liabilities, Medicaid, Medicare
If any insurance company, say your auto insurer or home owners insurer raised your premiums an unreasonable amount what would you do? I suspect you would switch insurance companies, perhaps give that little lizard a boot in the butt. When it comes to health insurance it takes the federal government to tell you what is unreasonable. We all better hope that the denials being made by regulators are themselves reasonable. A small change in assumptions can make a big difference in outcomes and if premiums are too low, there will be a great deal of catching up to do. Remember, a premium set in 2011 is designed to cover claims incurred through 2012 which may not be reflective of experience in the past twelve months. Actuaries know this of course, but let us hope political pressure is not influencing the many variables that go into setting premiums.
If you look at the release below you will see a rate cut for Anthem Blue Cross in Connecticut. However, when you go to the HHS link in the press release you find this:
Connecticut Rate Review
The Rate Review program began September 1, 2011. No insurers in Connecticut have proposed rate increases of 10% or more since that time. Check back regularly for updates.
Then we have the following hype. HHS is incapable of preparing a press release containing just facts, but rather must include more and more spin and unsubstantiated claims.
“The Affordable Care Act includes several policies, including rate review, to continue this slow growth. By fighting fraud, better coordinating care, preventing disease and illness before they happen and creating a new state-based insurance marketplace, it helps keep health care cost growth low.”
In fact only rate review has been implemented, the efforts at coordinated care are focused on Medicare, preventive disease programs have been used by employers for many years with no measurable results and the state-based marketplace is two years away.
News Release
Affordable Care Act holding insurers accountable for premium hikes. Health insurance premium increases in five states have been deemed “unreasonable” by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today.
After independent expert review, HHS determined that Trustmark Life Insurance Company has proposed unreasonable health insurance premium increases in five states—Alabama, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wyoming. The excessive rate hikes would affect nearly 10,000 residents across these five states.
To make these determinations, HHS used its “rate review” authority from the Affordable Care Act (the health care law of 2010) to determine whether premium increases of over 10 percent are reasonable.
“Before the Affordable Care Act, consumers were in the dark about their health insurance premiums because there was no nationwide transparency or accountability,” said Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. ”Now, insurance companies are required to disclose rate increases over 10 percent and justify these increases. It’s time for Trustmark to immediately rescind the rates, issue refunds to consumers or publicly explain their refusal to do so.”
In these five states, Trustmark has raised rates by 13 percent. For small businesses in Alabama and Arizona, when combined with other rate hikes made over the last 12 months, rates have increased by 27.2 percent and 18.1 percent, respectively. These increases were reviewed by independent experts to determine whether they are reasonable. In this case, HHS determined that the rate increases were unreasonable because the insurer would be spending a low percent of premium dollars on actual medical care and quality improvements, and because the justifications were based on unreasonable assumptions.
In addition to the review of rate increases, many states have the authority to reject unreasonable premium increases. Since the passage of the health care reform law, the number of states with this authority increased from 30 to 37, with several states extending existing “prior authority” to new markets.
Examples of how states have used this authority include:
In New Mexico, the state insurance division denied a request from Presbyterian Healthcare for a 9.7 percent rate hike, lowering it to 4.7 percent;In Connecticut, the state stopped Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the state’s largest insurer, from hiking rates by a proposed 12.9 percent, instead limiting it to a 3.9 percent increase;In Oregon, the state denied a proposed 22.1 percent rate hike by Regence, limiting it to 12.8 percent.In New York, the state denied rate increases from Emblem, Oxford, and Aetna that averaged 12.7 percent, instead holding them to an 8.2 percent increase.In Rhode Island, the state denied rate hikes from United Healthcare of New England ranging from 18 to 20.1 percent, instead seeing them cut to 9.6 to 10.6 percent.In Pennsylvania, the state held Highmark to rate hikes ranging from 4.9 to 8.3 percent, down from 9.9 percent.
Today’s announcement comes the same week that a report showed that health care spending has grown at remarkably low rates. According to an analysis done each year by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, U.S. health care spending experienced historically low rates of growth in 2009 and 2010. A recent study released by Mercer Consulting also showed a slow-down in the average employee health benefit cost to businesses.
The Affordable Care Act includes several policies, including rate review, to continue this slow growth. By fighting fraud, better coordinating care, preventing disease and illness before they happen and creating a new state-based insurance marketplace, it helps keep health care cost growth low.
For more information on the specific determinations made today, please visit http://companyprofiles.healthcare.gov/
Tags: Affordable Care Act, Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, health insurance premiums, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, United States Department of Health and Human Services
According to a recent federal report, health care spending rose at only 3.9% in 2010, the lowest rate in several years. The experts say this is probably due to the weak economy. That may be part of it, but this cycle has happened in he past, mainly when there was a national focus on health care costs as when the federal government promoted HMOs as the final solution and during the Clinton health care initiative.
Some of this trend has to do with the turmoil and misinformation about where health care reform is going and whose ox is going to get gored. In times of uncertainty health care providers hunker down to keep a lower profile.
This time things may be much worse when the cycle changes again. Millions more Americans will have coverage under very comprehensive benefits, most will be heavily subsidized for their premium costs, the mentality of “free” services to consumers is stronger because of the Affordable Care Act. In addition, there is pent-up demand that will be released soon after the start of 2014 and perhaps before.
I'm still not optimistic
In some cases, especially with employer based coverage, more and more expenses will move to employees because of cost shifting. So while the employer premiums and costs are moderated, that is only part of the story. Keep in mind also that the new mandates within the Affordable Care Act have already added 3% + – to insurance costs.
Finally, there are the hidden new costs imposed by the Affordable Care Act. New taxes and fees on medical equipment manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, insurers and employers will eventually find their way into premiums and out of consumer’s pockets. America may have slowed for the curve, but it has not hit the brakes.
There are some signs of serious efforts to fundamentally change the health care system and the way care is provided and paid for. However, how well patients will accept those changes is unknown, even if they are in their best interest. Nevertheless, significant positive affects of such changes are years in the future.
There is no joy in Mudville yet; mighty Casey is still looking for his bat.
From an Arthur Laffer commentary in the January 11, 2012 Wall Street Journal:
Incidentally, I’m not the first to question Mr. Buffett’s commitment to “shared sacrifice” in balancing the federal budget. In a 2007 CNBC interview, when asked why he shelters his money through tax-free strategies rather than writing big checks to Uncle Sam, Mr. Buffett responded: “I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter’s foundation, my two sons’ foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government.”
Amen, Mr. Buffet, I agree. I think my (and many others) modest monthly contributions to the Link Community School in Newark, NJ does a better job helping inner city minority children get a good education and better chance at the American dream than any government program. Such a program is a combination of the efforts of families who care, children who are motivated, dedicated educators and private contributors who care about effective use of their money .
That’s a lot different from government grants thrown at bureaucrats down the line who are largely unaccountable except perhaps to the politicians who want to be seen as caring for the downtrodden.
Mr. Buffet and the super wealthy like him on the left of our society must find it easy to promote higher taxes when no amount of taxation will impact them. However, it is mind-boggling that these really smart, savvy people think filtering more and more of American’s income through a massive, politically motivated, inefficient government bureaucracy is the most efficient or fairest way to raise the quality of life for us all. “War on poverty you say.”
Tags: Arthur Laffer, Warren Buffett
First target
One of the criticisms of the Affordable Care Act has been that few people actually know what is contained in the Act. Having spent untold hours reading the Act along with various independent assessments of the Act, I can testify to its immense complexity.
For example, in order to pay for the expansion of subsidized health insurance to millions of Americans, the Affordable Care Act adds numerous new fees and taxes on individuals’, employers and the health insurance industry. In 2010, there was a new tax on indoor tanning facilities (ok, so that is not a big deal, anyone who uses one of those deserves to be taxed). In 2014 there are new fees on employers and insurance companies, all of which have the potential of being passed along to consumers. In 2012 pharmaceutical companies that sell to the federal government are assessed what is called an annual fee (excise tax).
The various fees and taxes contained in the Act are among the few elements that are reasonably quantifiable. Other elements of the Act that are to reduce costs rely on assumptions of long-term success for well-meaning, but untried programs generally related to Medicare. To be successful, hospitals, physicians, other health care providers and Medicare beneficiaries must all work in a coordinated effort under new paradigms for providing health care.
Taking billions of dollars each year in new taxes impacts these organizations which then must find ways to mitigate this loss. It is tempting to simply dismiss such taxes as justified on highly profitable organizations. However, we should never forget that everything we do is connected to something else and every action has its consequences (think housing crisis). Generating revenue for some means a loss for others, a savings here means less revenue there and in some cases that may mean a loss of jobs, less invested in research or simply passing costs along to another party. When additional costs are imposed on employers, especially related to health benefits, it generally means greater cost sharing for employees and a shift in compensation from cash to employee benefit programs. Good benefits are valuable, but they don’t buy groceries or pay college tuition.
The following is excerpted from the IRS regulations with regard to the new fees on drug manufacturers (a very small sample of the hundreds of thousands, ultimately millions, of pages of regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act).
The aggregate fee amount each year for all covered entities (referred to as the applicable amount) is $2.5 billion for fee year 2011; $2.8 billion for fee years 2012 and 2013; $3 billion for fee years 2014 through 2016; $4 billion for fee year 2017; $4.1 billion for fee year 2018; and $2.8 billion for fee year 2019 and thereafter. The applicable amount for each year is allocated, using a specified formula, among covered entities with aggregate branded prescription drug sales of over $5 million to specified government programs or pursuant to coverage under such programs.
The specified government programs are the Medicare Part B program, the Medicare Part D program, the Medicaid program, any program under which branded prescription drugs are procured by the Department of Veterans Affairs, any program under which branded prescription drugs are procured by the Department of Defense, and the TRICARE retail pharmacy program (collectively, the Programs).
The annual fee for each covered entity is calculated by determining the ratio of (i) the covered entity’s branded prescription drug sales taken into account during the preceding calendar year to (ii) the aggregate branded prescription drug sales taken into account for all covered entities during the same year, and applying this ratio to the applicable amount. Sales taken into account means branded prescription drug sales after the application of the percentage adjustment table.
Tags: Affordable Care Act, branded drugs, fees imposed by PPACA, fees on drug companies, Medicaid, Medicare Part D, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Prescription drug
The “experts” have their say every day, they all have the solution to controlling health care costs, it’s too bad they haven’t worked.
Soooooo, now it’s your turn. Visit Health Insurance Illuminated, read my latest post and add your ideas for controlling health care costs. Who better than patients and consumers to help solve this problem?
The purpose of insurance
If you have homeowners insurance or auto insurance, I suspect you would be very happy never to have a claim and that goes double for health insurance. However, that does not stop some people from thinking they may be entitled to a refund if they do not file a health insurance claim.
What does happen to your premiums? Believe it or not, a relatively few people consume most of the health care and hence incur most of the health care expenses. Read more about this issue in my blog post on Health Insurance Illuminated
Tags: health insurance claims, health insurance premiums, who uses health insurance
2011 was a record year for Quinnscommentary. This blog was viewed about 160,000 times (not many by some standards, but pretty good for little old me). If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 7 days for that many people to see it. The busiest day of the year was October 19th with 5,840 views.
While most readers are from the U.S., Quinnscommentary was viewed by people in twenty-five different countries on all continents, including such diverse places as Greece, Romania, Tunisia, Australia, Fiji, Brazil and Nigeria (that guy was probably telling my he had $125 million in a bank account and wanted to share it with me if I would sen him my bank information).
I am keeping at it for 2012 and looking for a new high in people viewing my posts – so far so good.
In addition, I am writing a new Blog that I also hope you will view regularly. Health Insurance Illuminated is intended to educate and inform patients, employers and employees about the many issues related to health care. Please stop by and see what you think.
P.S. Your comments on both blogs are welcome and very important.
If there is one thing that the Affordable Care Act does well it is expanding health insurance coverage, much like what happened in Massachusetts. In the case of PPACA one goal was to expand coverage available to adult children. Some measure of additional coverage has been accomplished as reported below. Keep in mind that these children do not have to be dependent on the parent (employee) in order to be covered, may be married and cannot be charged an extra premium for the coverage. In addition, beginning in 2014 these children can be employed and have other coverage available and will still be eligible for their parent’s plan. Prior to that an employer may deny coverage to an employed adult child.
All this is a good thing if you are one of the families affected, but remember this additional cost is carried by employers and all other insured members of a group.
New Health Law Increased Insurance
Coverage of Adult ChildrenWASHINGTON—The new federal insurance law has increased the health insurance coverage of adult children between 2009 and 2011, according to a new report by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI).
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) enacted March 23, 2010, requires that group health plans and insurers make dependent coverage available for children until they attain the age of 26, regardless of tax or student status, or dependent status as it relates to financial support. The mandate to offer coverage to adult children ages 19‒25 took effect for policy years that began on or after Sept. 23, 2010, but since January is the beginning of the plan year for many employment-based health plans, many insurers adopted the requirements of the law before the effective date.
To determine whether the coverage mandate had an effect, EBRI examined data from two U.S. Census Bureau surveys (the Current Population Survey, CPS, and the Survey of Income and Program Participation, or SIPP), as well as from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) by the Centers for Disease Control. The data indicated:
- The percentage of persons ages 19‒25 with employment-based coverage as a dependent increased from 24.7 percent in 2009 to 27.7 percent in 2010, according to the CPS.
- The percentage of individuals ages 19‒25 with employment-based health coverage as a dependent averaged 26.9 percent during January‒September 2010, and increased to an average 27.1 percent during October and November, per SIPP.
- The percentage with private insurance increased from 51 percent to 55.8 percent, and the percentage uninsured fell from 33.9 percent during 2010 to 28.8 percent during the first half of 2011 among those ages 19‒25, according to data from the NHIS.
“Data from these three surveys show that PPACA has had a positive effect on the percentage of young adults with employment-based coverage as a dependent,” said Paul Fronstin, director of EBRI’s Health Research and Education Program and author of the report.
Full results of the report are published in the January 2012 EBRI Notes, “The Impact of PPACA on Employment-Based Health Coverage of Adult Children to Age 26,” online at www.ebri.org
The Employee Benefit Research Institute is a private, nonprofit research institute based in Washington, DC, that focuses on health, savings, retirement, and economic security issues. EBRI does not lobby and does not take policy positions.
Tags: adult children, adult children to age 26, Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefit Research Institute, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
During the health care reform debate the President repeatedly said that no one (meaning insurance companies) should come between you and your doctor. The US public seems to have taken the no interference philosophy to heart. Most Americans do not believe in a cost benefit analysis as justification for denying payment for health care treatment. Are we saying that cost does not matter?
This leads to a fundamental question; exactly how does the public expect health care costs to be controlled? Or better still, does the public want health care costs managed at all as long as their share of premiums is limited? If the public remains focused on premiums alone, we are headed for serious trouble far beyond our current state. Remember, these are the same people who we expect to act like consumers when it comes to buying health care.
Survey: Government shouldn’t impose on health treatment decisions
Most Americans are frustrated by decisions that limit the use of high-cost prescriptions and treatments, according to a survey by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Alliance for Aging Research.
A majority say they oppose decisions by the government or health insurance plans where prescription drugs or medical or surgical treatments are not paid for because the payors determine the benefits and do not justify the cost. The exception is if there’s evidence that something else works equally well but costs less. Sixty-four percent believe the government or health insurance plans should not pay for a more expensive prescription drug or medical or surgical treatment if it has not been shown to work better than less expensive ones. Majorities in Italy and Germany share both of these beliefs with the U.S. public. In the United Kingdom, at least a plurality shares these beliefs.
Tags: Alliance for Aging Research, controlling health care costs, Harvard School of Public Health, insurance company denials, Medical necessity
Recent Comments