People who test positive could be compensated with a lump sum payment to fill the gap in protection against unexpected loss of wages. Plus this policy would strongly motivate people to seek testing, helping contain the virus.
A key source of confusion is who has allowed this to happen? The answer: physicians, hospital systems, and private insurers who were “basically fine” with the arrangement and were unwilling to make the big concessions needed for change.
Economists believe that when the premium goes away, at the same salary workers become are a bargain and employers will want to hire more of them. Employers who compete to hire workers will bid up wages until they rise by the amount of the bargain — the original cost of the employer contribution.
There has been considerable consumer and policymaker concern about the rising prices of some prescription drugs, from the thousands-percent increases in the price of generics like Turing Pharmaceuticals' Daraprim to the average 8.8% increase by Pfizer for a large sample of its brand name drugs. Putting aside appeals by brand name firms for the need for funding for research and development (which does not apply to generics), the most attractive explanation for why brand nme drug makers can increase prices is because they can.
Millions of adult Americans who are under 65, not disabled, and have incomes near the poverty line do not have access to health insurance. Nevertheless, 19 states (Pennsylvania excluded, but Maine so far included) have not yet decided to participate in Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, despite the incentive of large federal matching payments. Those who remain uninsured in these states make up much of the remaining 10 - 15% of the population without coverage. Consequences of being uninsured, like financial distress and lower rates of use of medical care, have been documented for them. What, many of us in states that have implemented the expansion ask, is holding up the parade?