In his latest column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman examines the problems many Americans with health insurance are having paying medical bills based on a new Kaiser-New York Times Survey, and discusses why the issue of the adequacy of insurance coverage is gaining traction. All previous columns…
- view as grid
- view as list
New Kaiser/New York Times Survey Finds One in Five Working-Age Americans With Health Insurance Report Problems Paying Medical Bills
Among the Insured with Medical Bill Problems, 63% Report Using Up Most or All Their Savings and 42% Took on an Extra Job or Worked More Hours Half of People Without Health Insurance Report Problems With Medical Bills, and They Face Similar Financial and Personal Consequences As Those With Insurance…
The Burden of Medical Debt: Results from the Kaiser Family Foundation/New York Times Medical Bills Survey
To date, there has been little research providing a quantitative look at the causes of medical bill problems and the impacts they have on people’s families, their finances, and their access to health care. To fill this gap, the Kaiser Family Foundation and The New York Times conducted an in-depth survey with 1,204 adults ages 18-64 who report that they or someone in their household had problems paying or an inability to pay medical bills in the previous 12 months.
In this column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman explores the data behind public concern about prescription drug costs and highlights that the people most in need are the most burdened by the problem.
In his latest column for The Wall Street Journal‘s Think Tank, Drew Altman explains why prescription drug spending may be a larger share of health spending than most people think, depending on how you look at it. All previous columns by Drew Altman are online.
In this column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman explains why prescription drug spending may be a larger share of health spending than most people think, depending on how you look at it.
Although a Small Share of Medicare Part D Enrollees Take Specialty Drugs, A New Analysis Finds Those Who Do Can Face Thousands of Dollars in Out-of-Pocket Drug Costs Despite Plan Limits on Catastrophic Expenses
Some Medicare Part D enrollees can expect to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for a single specialty drug in 2016, even though Part D plans provide substantial protection against catastrophic costs, according to a new analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The findings illustrate how high prescription drug prices, one…
This analysis focuses on out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare Part D enrollees in 2016 for specialty, brand, and generic drugs. Part D drug plans differ considerably in the drugs they list on their formularies, their use of formulary tiers, and the level and structure of cost sharing applied to those tiers. Plan decisions affect different beneficiaries in different ways, depending on the drugs they use. The financial consequences for Part D plan enrollees can be substantial. In addition to examining costs for common drugs, we also examine profiles of multiple drugs for several hypothetical Part D enrollees.
Medicaid Premium Assistance Programs: What Information is Available About Benefit and Cost-Sharing Wrap-Around Coverage?
This issue brief examines states’ approaches to administering wrap-around benefits and cost-sharing in long-standing Medicaid premium assistance programs and the information available to beneficiaries about how to access these program features.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private health insurance plans to provide coverage for a broad range of preventive services, including most contraceptives for women. This policy was at the center of a Supreme Court case brought forward by for-profit corporations (Hobby Lobby and Conestoga) that successfully claimed that the contraceptive coverage requirement violated their religious rights. Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear yet another challenge (Zubik v Burwell) to the contraceptive coverage requirement, this time brought by nonprofit corporations, claiming that the accommodation established by the federal government for religiously affiliated nonprofit employers with objections to contraception violates their religious rights.