California has often been termed the land of fruits and nuts, but I think they may have stumbled across a good idea that may revolutionize the way the rest of the country views the left coast. An article in the Sacramento Bee discusses the idea of requiring insurance companies to cover 100% of the cost of any stop smoking medication approved by the FDA. This would include Zyban, Chantix and any of the nicotine replacement therapies that require a prescription.
Well, what does this do. It would force the insurance companies to pick up the copayment and/or deductible for countless smokers who may be hesitating to quit due to the cost. And because they live in California, I can see where they'd want to potentially spend that extra money on things like food or rent. Now, common sense, tells everyone that if they are really worried about pinching pennies, then they shouldn't be smoking in the first place. After all, a pack of cigarettes can cost on average $5 per day or more, depending on the addiction. Putting that aside though, I wonder if that many people will really decide to stop smoking as a result of the legislation? Will saving some money, really cause the smoker extra motivation to stop smoking? I really don't know the answer to that question.
But, I believe the senators are on the right track. Please don't quote me on that, because I can't believe I just said it myself. Regardless, it is true. Smoking currently costs the US over $190 Billion. About 20% of all US citizens smoke and just under 500,000 people die because of smoking related illnesses. Those are sobering statistics and represent a significant cost to Medicare (our tax dollars), private insurance (our premiums), and local communities resources (our local taxes).
Imagine what impact we could have if smoking decreased by 10% across the nation? What would that do for our premiums and medicare taxes? Think of it, 10% reduction in lung cancer, COPD (emphysema), cardiovascular disease - the Big 3 related to smoking. That would actually reduce the risk and thus, reduce the cost associated with the risk.
By my math, that would more than pay for the intensive care unit admissions, chemotherapy and other related healthcare expenses associated with smoking that insurers currently have to dole out each day across the country.
But again, will the California smokers take advantage of this prospect if it gets signed into law? That is the big question. However, insurers should not balk at this idea as it really is a win-win for them. For those who take advantage of the law, they'll have a greater chance of quitting smoking. For those that don't, well, the insurer isn't out any extra money.
So, it seems like a no brainer. This also should satisfy liberals and conservatives, because the liberal should like the government telling big pharma what to do, and the conservative should like the government giving the little guy a chance to overcome his challenging situations.
Well, what does this do. It would force the insurance companies to pick up the copayment and/or deductible for countless smokers who may be hesitating to quit due to the cost. And because they live in California, I can see where they'd want to potentially spend that extra money on things like food or rent. Now, common sense, tells everyone that if they are really worried about pinching pennies, then they shouldn't be smoking in the first place. After all, a pack of cigarettes can cost on average $5 per day or more, depending on the addiction. Putting that aside though, I wonder if that many people will really decide to stop smoking as a result of the legislation? Will saving some money, really cause the smoker extra motivation to stop smoking? I really don't know the answer to that question.
But, I believe the senators are on the right track. Please don't quote me on that, because I can't believe I just said it myself. Regardless, it is true. Smoking currently costs the US over $190 Billion. About 20% of all US citizens smoke and just under 500,000 people die because of smoking related illnesses. Those are sobering statistics and represent a significant cost to Medicare (our tax dollars), private insurance (our premiums), and local communities resources (our local taxes).
Imagine what impact we could have if smoking decreased by 10% across the nation? What would that do for our premiums and medicare taxes? Think of it, 10% reduction in lung cancer, COPD (emphysema), cardiovascular disease - the Big 3 related to smoking. That would actually reduce the risk and thus, reduce the cost associated with the risk.
By my math, that would more than pay for the intensive care unit admissions, chemotherapy and other related healthcare expenses associated with smoking that insurers currently have to dole out each day across the country.
But again, will the California smokers take advantage of this prospect if it gets signed into law? That is the big question. However, insurers should not balk at this idea as it really is a win-win for them. For those who take advantage of the law, they'll have a greater chance of quitting smoking. For those that don't, well, the insurer isn't out any extra money.
So, it seems like a no brainer. This also should satisfy liberals and conservatives, because the liberal should like the government telling big pharma what to do, and the conservative should like the government giving the little guy a chance to overcome his challenging situations.
0 comments:
Post a Comment