Report of the Joint Legislative Committee on Health Insurance Plans 1956.

  • New York (State). Legislature. Joint Legislative Committee on Health Insurance Plans
Date:
1956
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report of the Joint Legislative Committee on Health Insurance Plans 1956. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    56/90 page 54
    o4 may have a principal portion underwritten but the individual should bear a part of these costs. Medical costs are subject to judgment of the doctor and of the individual. If the individual has a share, he and the professional personnel will be more dis- eriminatory and will arrive at that which is best and soundest in the light of all conditions. With respect to specific proposals at hand, I am pleased that there are two which are in the area of what we consider sound and practical. As I mentioned, we introduced last year a comprehensive plan with a small basic deductible, and then using co-insurance (that is, with the plan paying 75 per cent to 85 per cent and the employee paying 20 per cent to 25 per cent, high maximums of as much as $7,500 of annual benefits are available for hospital, surgical, medical, nursing, medicines and other costs in and out of the hospital. This plan offered to our employees was accepted by 96 per cent of them. This is closely similar to the type of coverage the Governor has recommended in his recent message. Also, you have before you a bill, Introductory 2467, which provides a standard type basic plan, on top of which, after a deductible of $100, there is catastrophic coverage, and in this latter portion the employee pays 25 per cent and the plan 75 per cent of costs, with $5,000 annual maximum benefits. This type of plan, we also offered our employees, and 4 per cent took it. It is a typical type of basic plus extended plan which is found frequently where catastrophic or major medical plans are available, especially when added to an already existing basic plan. The first major medical plan which was put into effect in G. E., and this was as recently as 1949, so you can see this type of coverage is new and it is still not widespread. We are happy to see catastrophic coverage being proposed, although we believe of the two types—that is, of the comprehensive or the basic, plus extended—that the comprehensive is far sounder and 96 per cent of our employees thought so, too. Its initial deductible and co-insurance made it the best approach to the medical insurance problem we think, and where a fresh start is being made, this type of plan seems to be the more logical step. On the other hand, it is our belief that the principles in the bill, Senate Introductory 928, with its service features no deductibles or co-insurance, lack of many truly catastrophic benefits, unduly extended definition of dependents, the high share of cost of dependent coverage to be borne by the government (which also applies to the other proposals, too, but to a lesser extent), and unrestricted coverage for retired employees, represents what we believe to be a definitely unsound approach to the health insurance problem for state employees. We believe that if its principles were adopted the costs to and for state employees would be unnecessarily high and the basic principles of sound insurance for them as well as industrial employees in the state would be in danger. We earnestly recommend that a program be adopted which will be consistent with our American way of life under which it is
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3