« PreviousContinue »
generally in the case of the large bill. The small office visit, and so forth, where he feels more free and a greater chance of collecting the bill, that is where the heavy incidence of the direct billing method takes place. He takes the risk there in collecting and the costs of collecting, and so forth, but what I would like to point out is the inconsistency here that the Secretary sees no such incentive; in fact, he tells us there is an incentive the other way in his proposal, but in describing the present Medicare proposal, he describes a move away from assignment to the economic motives and results in the cutback.
Now, yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I spoke at some length about the very basic differences in the philosophy of the approach of these two programs and it seems to me that is apparent, without underscoring it, to the members of this committee, but there was, in last Sunday's Post an article of such discernment and perceptiveness, preceding these hearings, I do not know that the author even knew that these hearings were scheduled but he could very well have been preparing this paper for these hearings because it runs just to these points. It is by Prof. Rashi Fein, who is a medical economist. He is the professor of economics at Harvard Medical School and a faculty member of the Kennedy School.
This runs so much to the point of the issue now before this committee that I would like to ask, sir, it be made a part of the record.
Senator MUSKIE. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record.*
Mr. CRUIKSHANK. Thank you. If you have no further questions, I am finished at this point.
Senator MUSKIE. Well, I think we have touched on the significant points here in this morning's hearing. I find that this bouncing back and forth of hypothetical examples can be very confusing and, of course, the Secretary wanted to steer away from any implication that the program represented any reduction for any significant number of people and anything we would get in the record to illuminate that point is instructive. I think your willingness to respond to his testimony has been very helpful.
I would like to suggest if, upon further reflection, there are other points you would like to make, we would, of course, welcome them for the record.
Mr. CRUIKSHANK. Thank you, sir.
*See appendix 3, item 2, p. 987.
ITEM 1. LETTER AND ENCLOSURE FROM HON. CASPAR WEINBERGER,
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WEL-
Washington, D.C., May 21, 1974.
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: In reply to your letter of April 5 requesting responses to questions relating to the administration's comprehensive health insurance proposal, we have prepared the enclosed material, which we hope you will find helpful. Sincerely,
Question 1. You have said in your statement that the total increase in Federal spending for the aged will be approximately $1.8 billion. Please submit a breakdown of (1) amounts which will be spent for each of the added benefits, such as catastrophic coverage, drugs, mental; (2) the total amount of savings (and extra charges to the elderly) of the cost-saving provisions; and (3) the interrelationships among these items.
New FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FOR AGED (65 AND OVER) UNDER CHIP FEDERAL
HEALTH CARE PLAN
Items resulting in increased Federal expenditures :
1. Newly eligible aged persons.-
Cost (in billions)
1. 5 0.3 1.2 0.6
Gross increase in Federal spending----
Items resulting in reduced Federal expenditures :
-0.6 2. New HI taxes on Government employees and reduced Federal spending in other programs (largely Medicaid).
Net increase in Federal expenditures for the aged--
Question 2. To help evaluate the impact of cost-sharing provisions for various income groups of the elderly, could you please submit (1) a breakdown of the elderly population by income level ; (2) whatever information is available on present health care costs (total and out-of-pocket) and utilization by income level ; and (3) comparative figures for the non-elderly population.
ESTIMATED INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONS 65 AND OVER ANTICIPATED FOR FISCAL 1975
The following tables on present (fiscal year 1973) health care costs (total and out-of-pocket) and utilization of health care services for various age groups will appear, with analysis on age differences in medical care spending, in the May 1974 Social Security Bulletin.
Highlights for fiscal year 1973 reveal that:
was spent for the young, 57 percent for persons aged 19–64, and 28 percent
for the aged. -An aged person had an average medical bill of $1,052, compared with $384
for a person in the intermediate group, and $167 for a youth. -The average hospital bill for an aged person was 10 times that of a youth
and nearly triple that for a person in the intermediate age group; for physicians' services, his bill was three and one-half times that for a youth and
double that for the remaining group. --Public funds paid for nearly three-tenths of personal health care spending
for the two younger groups and two-thirds for the aged. - Medicare met two-fifths (40 percent) of the aged's health bill-slightly
lower than the 42 percent figure in 1972. The smaller proportion results in part from the increase in the SMI deductible, which rose from $50 to $60 as of January 1973. The overall proportion met by all public programs was slightly higher in 1973, however, due to an increase in Medicaid spending for
the aged. -All third parties—Government, private health insurance, philanthropy and
industry-paid seven-tenths of the aged's health bill and more than threefifths of the bill for persons under age 65.
14, 917 3, 424
1,723 3, 234
1, 348 357 80 43 74 11 60 746
17, 582 8, 326 3, 281
6, 338 1, 058 125
8, 644 3, 168
1,416 1, 159
7, 228 2,009
17, 548 3, 744
1,772 3, 221 1,030
1, 746 415 92 51 97 13 43 849
9, 807 3,658
1,777 1, 508
TABLE 1.-ESTIMATED PERSONAL HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURES, BY TYPE OF EXPENDITURE AND SOURCE OF FUNDS, FOR THREE AGE GROUPS, FISCAL YEARS 1971-73
65 and over
Type of expenditure
* Preliminary estimates.