6 ms·
The problem is that your catastrophic costs are likely to be massively higher if your problems are not caught by routine checkups and standard screenings. But
by btilly 6y ago
The problem is that your catastrophic costs are likely to be massively higher if your problems are not caught by routine checkups and standard screenings. But if we make people pay the full costs for routine checkups and standard screenings, they won't bother getting them. So it is in the interest of your insurance company to make sure you get those checkups and screenings.
By contrast your odds of a catastrophic collision have more to do with drivers and driving collisions than they do with whether you got an oil change recently. If they were insuring your cost of major repairs and buying a new car, then they would have an incentive to get involved with routine maintenance as well.
- throwawayboise 6y agoI have good insurance from my employer but I haven't been to a doctor in at least 10 years. I don't think it's a given that people get routine care just because insurance covers it, or would avoid it if they had to pay (a predictable, modest amount) for it out-of-pocket.
- btilly 6y agoIt is not a given. But there is a correlation. And the correlation is enough for insurance companies to statistically benefit from their attempts to encourage people to do it.
- valzam 6y agoThere is a middle ground (this is how most dental care in Germany works): Regular cleanings are not covered by your insurance, giving an incentive for price competition. However, if you need major dental work your insurance might not cover it if you skipped the regular cleaning.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago> But if we make people pay the full costs for routine checkups and standard screenings, they won't bother getting them. Alas, those checkups and screenings still cost the same, regardless of who is paying for them. So when you decouple payment from benefit, you create adverse incentives.