[nocoment]

I still don't understand why a consortium of insurance companies doesn't run studies looking for better outcomes with out-of-patent and un-patented drugs.

Their tests would be of already approved drugs.

In many situations they could save a bundle and in others they would dissuade drug companies from pushing the advertising and costs.

The statistics on everything they test would show their general level of bias (assuming drugs aren't getting any worse.)

[ensignavenger]

Many insurance companies (I think that now perhaps all of them in the US, thanks to ObamaCare) have to pay out a certain percent of what they take in to health providers. Thus if they want to increase premiums, and therefore profits, the only way to do it is to increase the cost of care. Preferably, they increase the cost of care for everyone, which drives more people to buy insurance, and means that some other company isn't able to undercut them on premiums by reducing costs. Of course, they als get more float, which insurance companies love. That is the model that health care insurance companies follow, and ObamaCare was a huge gift to helping them out.

[Mz]

Um, no offense, but do you have any idea what insurance companies are really all about? That sounds, well, crazy to me (as someone with a) a serious medical condition and b) who used to work for an insurance company).

[glomph]

Because if treatment gets cheaper they have less business?