Studies of the aged and aging : selected documents, v. 2: Health and health services.

  • United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.
Date:
1957
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Studies of the aged and aging : selected documents, v. 2: Health and health services. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    16/244 (page 4)
    Normally, for the general population insurance is associated with | higher utilization and higher costs even for uninsured services. Among | those 65 years of age and over the difference is not striking except for | hospital care as indicated in the table below. Costs for 65 years of age and over Type of service Insured Uninsured EAES OY VACRG ee ne. ce a ae Sue O80 ee TSE GL a, eR ens aris oe eee ee ae $111 $98 J EA Gh As) (7k2 0 See a Pee SAE MOLES CRSR wohd San ca te eee et Be OR en at AEN 36 36 TEVOSDItals os Ses See cee ae ees 5S SS Ge: 5 5 ee oe AR ee So aoe oe a ES 31 S22 IVECGICINGSN 0 ee Lo Eek eee ae PUR T Oaetre See: eas Clee pt ee 23 21 TD OTT ANE sre ee ee Le ee gen Be es et cee ee a. 3 5 Oi narrer= 2e tae: eee Oe AR See ae PER Geieme ae 19 16 V. OBSERVATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS In the foregoing I have indicated that people 65 years of age and over on an average utilize more personal health services and incur higher charges than the general population. The percent of costs in excess of the general population on the face of it seems frightening, namely, 57 percent for all personal health services, 44 percent for physicians’ services, and 92 percent for hospital care. The saving factor, however, is that those 65 years of age and over comprise only 9 percent of the population so that if the cost of those 65 years of age and over in excess of the per person average for the general population is spread over the entire population, the increase per person is quite modest. Can the aged segment of the population carry their own cost in an insurance program after they reach 65 in the face of lowered earning power, and increasing disability, despite the absence of financial responsibility for young dependents? What are the relative responsibilities of employers, the working population under 65, the aged themselves, and of government? This is a matter for general social policy. What I am establishing is what appears to be the problem, and several alternative or joint solutions can be suggested by those who tormulate policy and hold the purse strings. If we are thinking of specific services, it will be recalled that the per person charges for physicians’ charges were $25 for the general popula- tion and for those 65 and over $36, a difference of $11. If these $11 were spread over the population under 65, the increased per capita would be $1 or approximately 4 percent, and the aged would be receiving $36 worth of physicians’ services for $25. For hospital care the general population experienced a per capita cost of $13 and those 65 years of age and over $25, a difference of $12. If the $12 were spread over the population under 65, the increased per capita cost would again be $1 or approximately 8 percent, and the aged would be receiving $25 worth of general hospital services for $13° If we are thinking of total costs of personal health services it will also be recalled that the per person incurred charges for personal health services in the general population were $65 a year; for those 65 and over the incurred charges were $102. If the difference between $65 and $102, namely $37, was distributed over the population under 65 years of age, it would raise the per capita cost by $3 or 5 percent. ire. the aged would theoretically be receiving $102 worth of services (OF DOD,