Group four would be also well served by slowing or reversing the growth of the cost of medical care. They might be susceptible to public education campaigns about the dangers of 'going bare' and the relative benefits to their health of investing at least in regular preventative care (even if they can't be persuaded to buy plans, though if they did that would be even better for lowering the per person costs). It might also be cost effective to some form of mild tax credit, as an incentive (I'm not sure how the numbers would break out on advantage of increasing the risk pool versus the cost of the credit; I think those might be very difficult to break out).
You could also ask the question differently: what could be done to improve health outcomes (as opposed to making sure that everyone has an insurance plan). Given the evolving, contradictory nature of much of the research in this area, I think it's a point to ponder.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-26 01:13 am (UTC)You could also ask the question differently: what could be done to improve health outcomes (as opposed to making sure that everyone has an insurance plan). Given the evolving, contradictory nature of much of the research in this area, I think it's a point to ponder.