This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice  • Health Policy  • Medical Practice, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Victor R. Fuchs, PhD

JAMA. 2009;302(9):999-1000.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Almost every political pronouncement now emphasizes cost reduction as a central object of health care reform. The policy recommendations that follow, however, frequently aim at cost shifting rather than cost reduction. Shifting has popular appeal while reduction usually requires painful choices. To see the irrelevance of shifting for cost reduction, consider the proposal to prohibit health insurance companies from varying premiums according to enrollee's health status. This obviously reduces premiums for the sick but, not so obviously, also increases premiums for the healthy. Such a shift may be desirable on equity grounds but does nothing to reduce the real cost of care. Also, unless accompanied by a strict mandate, these shifts may lead to an increase in the uninsured because some healthy individuals will discontinue their health insurance coverage in response to higher premiums.

A subsidy is another example of a so-called cut in the cost . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Higher Administrative Costs

Author Affiliation: Departments of Economics and Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?