A critical review of the arguments for insurance coverage for smoking-cessation therapies.
This article elucidates the reasons most insurance companies do not cover smoking-cessation therapies despite their obvious benefits. It critically reviews the arguments for and against using a universal mandate as a strategy to increase use of smoking-cessation programs to realize the associated health benefits and cost-savings. While convincing arguments exist to mandate insurance coverage for self-destructive health behaviors, their merit is tempered by several valid counter arguments. For example, insurance coverage for small, routine, and predictable events, such as smoking-cessation treatment, violates the "first principles" of what ought to be covered when considered from the traditional insurance perspective. An insurance solution to risky behaviors may be to make undesirable behaviors more undesirable to individuals by raising premiums rather than to make them less undesirable with subsidies.
Chang
C F
CF
Fogelman College of Business and Economics, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee 38152, USA. cchang@memphis.edu
D017046:Cost Savings; D005249:Fees and Charges; D006279:Health Maintenance Organizations / Q000191:economics*; D006293:Health Promotion / Q000191:economics; D019458:Insurance Coverage; D012309:Risk-Taking; D016540:Smoking Cessation / Q000191:economics*; D014481:United States; D019472:Universal Health Insurance