Included in Friday Links (November 10) was the title, “Would coverage for gene therapies make employer-based health insurance unaffordable?” That raises an important question: How much should employers (and employees) be required to pay for hyper-expensive therapies very few people need? A related question: should the purpose of employee health coverage be to recruit and retain workers or fund rare disease research and therapies?
Category: Health Insurance
Friday Links
- Competition for primary care: Amazon is charging $9 a month for an unlimited number of virtual visits.
- Federal outlays: we spend four times as much on adults as we spend on children.
- Vaping is “turning millions of young people into addicted customers.”
- Would coverage for gene therapies make employer-based health insurance unaffordable?
- Thinner women end up with richer husbands.
- Survey: there has been a dramatic decline in public trust in scientific and medical expertise from before the covid pandemic to today.
Patients Need to Act More Like Consumers (and Providers More Like Competitors)
A Crisis of Confusion is proving costly for American health care consumers. Dylan Scott of Vox Media wrote about how health care consumers don’t, won’t or can’t navigate the health care system in ways that could save them money. He is correct.