While death rates from auto accidents have been steadily decreasing, that’s not the case for motorcycles. There were 1.7% fewer motor vehicle fatalities last year, but motorcyclist deaths didn’t drop at all.
What’s going on? Well, after states laws mandating helmet usage were repealed, death rates climbed dramatically, up 21% in Arkansas, 81% in Florida, 58% in Kentucky, 108% in Louisiana, and 31% in Texas.
So why should you care?
Well, when these freedom-loving riders smack their heads into the pavement, dying or even worse incurring a traumatic brain injury, who pays for the heroic – and very expensive – efforts to save their lives?
Turns out less than half had health insurance coverage.
If they don’t have private insurance, that would be you and me. Research indicates taxpayers pick up about 40% of the medical costs from helmetless riders; cost-shifting to private insurers is certainly high as well.
Here’s a simple solution that should be added to any bill repealing a state’s helmet law.
Those who want to ride without a helmet have to buy insurance that reflects that decision. That insurance must provide comprehensive coverage for medical care for accidents associated with the covered individual, including long term custodial care, with a really high limit – say $10 million, that is indexed to the medical CPI to account for inflation.
Upon showing proof of coverage, they get a special license plate. Insurance companies take the risk, society does not get harmed due to the adverse consequence of a personal decision, and those who want to ride with their hair blowing in the wind are free to do so.
Oh, and they should be required to be organ donors as well.
May
23
According to the American Motorcyclist Association, motorcyclist deaths on the roads/highways has dropped 16% since 2008, remaining flat in 2010 and 2011 at approximately 4,300. The statistic and your presentation lack two significant issues, those being accident causation (in no way impacted by the use of a helmet) and actual statistics regarding the costs of so called ‘heroic’ life saving efforts and any long term care of the few that actually survive a head to pavement or vehicle impact. Inferring that somehow the lack of helmet use impacts in any substantive way upon the cost of private health insurance is at best speculation. Without some study on the marginal cost increase of providing care to those injured on the street on motorcycles for those not wearing helmets compared to those wearing helmets with identical head impacts would seem to be saying that the Medicare budgetary problems have been fixed by the Secondary Payer legislation and NGHP reporting. Speculative and probably untrue.
I’ve been in the claims industry for 38 years, and have ridden and raced motorcycles that entire time. I am a strong supporter of wearing a helmet when riding, just as I am a strong supporter of smoking cessation and elimination of physician dispensing of medications. I do not think, however, that your piece does anything but ‘stir up’ your readers about something that is statistically insignificant when compared to the total cost of health care in the US. I’d urge you to support studies of accident causation and prosecution for motorcycle / auto accidents as well as helmet injury vs non-helmet survivor injury issues. Perhaps with the facts we can all aid in legislation that is meaningful, protects the rights of riders and does not pass along unfair costs to the remainder of the citizens of the US.
Here, here! Brilliant idea! The coverage caveat makes so much sense.
Injured motorcyclists are less likely than the general population to use public funds to pay for injuries sustained in crashes, and no more likely to be uninsured than other vehicle operators. A Harborview Medical Center study published in 1988 reported that injured motorcyclists in the trauma center relied on public funds a lower percentage of the time than did automobile drivers to pay their hospital bills during the same time period. A 1992 study by the University of North Carolina’s Highway Safety Research Center reported that automobile drivers and motorcyclists have their medical costs covered by insurance at a nearly identical rate.
http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/Rights/PositionStatements/VoluntaryHelmetUse.aspx
Mike – thanks for the thoughtful comment.
Couple observations.
1. The accident causation issue is a red herring; the fact is there are accidents, the issue is who pays for the TBIs and other unique-to-not-wearing-a-helmet injuries.
2. The inference that lack of helmet use leads to higher expenditures for other payers and taxpayers is not mine alone; it is logical on its face (cost shifting is well-documented and the costs of uncompensated care provided by hospitals and some other providers is part and parcel of the Medicare facility reimbursement program) and I provided a citation as well. This is not a matter of speculation.
3. How much cost is added to the system by helmetless motorcyclists is undoubtedly in the tens of millions and likely much more. I provided links to primary-and secondary sources that have a wealth of detail on the costs of and who pays for these riders when they crash; I suggest you look thru those data and arrive at your own figure. The statistical significance is not the point, the key issue is these are “free-riders” not only in their desire to ride without helmets but their willingness to require you and me to pay for their health costs.
That’s the point Mike. We don’t need any studies to know that this is irresponsible and adds to the costs you and I and all taxpayers cover. In fact, your final sentence is exactly what my recommendation is intended to do.
Great source for organ donations. Perhpas the benefit for transplant patients offsets some of the costs.
Not to be too cynical, but the seat belt law reduced the number or organs, and cyclists are general good donor candidates.
“Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.”
Pope John Paul II
Pete – thanks for the note.
Your citations are quite dated; the number of uninsured, and demographics of same, have changed dramatically in the intervening decades.
I’d suggest they also avoid the key topic – who pays for their freedom?