7. How do helmet use laws impact health care costs?
Unhelmeted riders have higher health care costs as a result of their crash injuries, and many lack health insurance. In November 2002, NHTSA reported that 25 studies of the costs of injuries from motorcycle crashes "consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, probability and severity of head injuries, cost of medical treatment, length of hospital stay, necessity for special medical treatments, and probability of long-term disability. A number of studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government."24
Among the specific findings of several of the studies:
•A 1996 NHTSA study showed average inpatient hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists in crashes were 8 percent higher than for helmeted riders ($15,578 compared with $14,377).25
•After California introduced a helmet use law in 1992, studies showed a decline in health care costs associated with head-injured motorcyclists. The rate of motorcyclists hospitalized for head injuries decreased by 48 percent in 1993 compared with 1991, and total costs for patients with head injuries decreased by $20.5 million during this period.26
•A study of the effects of Nebraska's reinstated helmet use law on hospital costs found the total acute medical charges for injured motorcyclists declined 38 percent.17
A NHTSA evaluation of the weakening of Florida's universal helmet law in 2000 to exclude riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of medical insurance coverage found a huge increase in hospital admissions of cyclists with injuries to the head, brain, and skull. Such injuries went up 82 percent during the 30 months immediately following the law change. The average inflation-adjusted cost of treating these injuries went up from about $34,500 before the helmet law was weakened to nearly $40,000 after. Less than one-quarter of the injured motorcyclists' hospital bills would have been covered by the $10,000 medical insurance requirement for riders who chose not to use helmets.11
Studies conducted in Nebraska, Washington, California, and Massachusetts indicate how injured motorcyclists burden taxpayers. Forty-one percent of motorcyclists injured in Nebraska from January 1988 to January 1990 lacked health insurance or received Medicaid or Medicare.17 In Seattle, 63 percent of trauma care for injured motorcyclists in 1985 was paid by public funds.27 In Sacramento, public funds paid 82 percent of the costs to treat orthopedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists during 1980-83.28 Forty-six percent of motorcyclists treated at Massachusetts General Hospital during 1982-83 were uninsured.29
That was on my first try. What they do does effect the rest of us. WE end up paying. Everybody else in their stupid life ends up paying. Yeah, this is a hot button issue for me.
Unhelmeted riders have higher health care costs as a result of their crash injuries, and many lack health insurance. In November 2002, NHTSA reported that 25 studies of the costs of injuries from motorcycle crashes "consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, probability and severity of head injuries, cost of medical treatment, length of hospital stay, necessity for special medical treatments, and probability of long-term disability. A number of studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government."24
Among the specific findings of several of the studies:
•A 1996 NHTSA study showed average inpatient hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists in crashes were 8 percent higher than for helmeted riders ($15,578 compared with $14,377).25
•After California introduced a helmet use law in 1992, studies showed a decline in health care costs associated with head-injured motorcyclists. The rate of motorcyclists hospitalized for head injuries decreased by 48 percent in 1993 compared with 1991, and total costs for patients with head injuries decreased by $20.5 million during this period.26
•A study of the effects of Nebraska's reinstated helmet use law on hospital costs found the total acute medical charges for injured motorcyclists declined 38 percent.17
A NHTSA evaluation of the weakening of Florida's universal helmet law in 2000 to exclude riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of medical insurance coverage found a huge increase in hospital admissions of cyclists with injuries to the head, brain, and skull. Such injuries went up 82 percent during the 30 months immediately following the law change. The average inflation-adjusted cost of treating these injuries went up from about $34,500 before the helmet law was weakened to nearly $40,000 after. Less than one-quarter of the injured motorcyclists' hospital bills would have been covered by the $10,000 medical insurance requirement for riders who chose not to use helmets.11
Studies conducted in Nebraska, Washington, California, and Massachusetts indicate how injured motorcyclists burden taxpayers. Forty-one percent of motorcyclists injured in Nebraska from January 1988 to January 1990 lacked health insurance or received Medicaid or Medicare.17 In Seattle, 63 percent of trauma care for injured motorcyclists in 1985 was paid by public funds.27 In Sacramento, public funds paid 82 percent of the costs to treat orthopedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists during 1980-83.28 Forty-six percent of motorcyclists treated at Massachusetts General Hospital during 1982-83 were uninsured.29
That was on my first try. What they do does effect the rest of us. WE end up paying. Everybody else in their stupid life ends up paying. Yeah, this is a hot button issue for me.
You can't make this stuff up: Helmet law protester dies in crash
- 05/07/2011 08:47:14 PM
872 Views
Kinda undermines his protest
*NM*
- 05/07/2011 09:01:50 PM
255 Views
*NM*
- 05/07/2011 09:01:50 PM
255 Views
How so? He wasn't demanding the right to survive crashes when only a helmet makes that possible.
- 05/07/2011 11:06:44 PM
542 Views
New York feels that people should have to wear helmets for their own safety
- 05/07/2011 11:20:36 PM
516 Views
He felt his own safety was his own concern.
- 06/07/2011 12:07:05 AM
456 Views
Who do you think would have ended up paying for his care for the rest of his life if the accident
- 06/07/2011 01:08:49 AM
600 Views
The same people who pay for everyone else whose actions render them vegetables.
- 06/07/2011 01:50:20 AM
711 Views
Maybe a more effective argument you could use against me would be pointing out
- 06/07/2011 02:33:21 AM
505 Views
*NM*
what a fricking idiot
- 05/07/2011 10:02:17 PM
683 Views
That's your opinion to which you're entitled.
- 05/07/2011 11:19:36 PM
924 Views
Anarchy, baby! *NM*
- 06/07/2011 12:58:23 AM
463 Views
Sorry, as an advocate of civil rights (which especially includes minorities) I oppose anarchy.
- 06/07/2011 01:18:19 AM
583 Views
The public's nose is on the line here too.
- 06/07/2011 01:47:08 AM
642 Views
So my increased ease of hearing/seeing vehicles and other hazards isn't worth $1200.
- 06/07/2011 02:25:53 AM
647 Views
I understand the pov, I had a BF who felt that same way. It's still much like childish defiance.
- 06/07/2011 01:26:15 AM
746 Views
In part it's a matter of principle, but if we really want to analyze it there's some deeper validity
- 06/07/2011 02:13:05 AM
611 Views
you keep spreading falsehoods, stop it please
- 06/07/2011 02:49:01 AM
784 Views
Sounds like your real argument is with the other bikers; I'm just reiterating their arguments.
- 06/07/2011 03:38:39 AM
711 Views
Uh Joel...
- 06/07/2011 03:38:24 AM
541 Views
Agreed, having others in the car does make a difference.
- 06/07/2011 03:47:53 AM
623 Views
Hence why your "I wouldn't wear a seatbelt in the back seat" comment didn't make a lot of sense
- 06/07/2011 07:38:50 PM
587 Views
- 06/07/2011 07:38:50 PM
587 Views
Depends on whether the driver, rather than the law, is the one insisting.
- 06/07/2011 08:06:24 PM
456 Views
You'd place your own comfort over other people's safety?
- 06/07/2011 11:37:00 PM
493 Views
It's more a comfort issue than anything else; it's not solely one.
- 06/07/2011 11:56:28 PM
971 Views
Hold the phone here...
- 06/07/2011 07:49:10 PM
871 Views
+1 *NM*
- 06/07/2011 08:42:14 PM
322 Views
You agree with him that the abortion debate is about a mothers convenience versus the babys life?
- 06/07/2011 10:48:52 PM
611 Views
im not bringing abortion into this, its a separate issue *NM*
- 06/07/2011 10:56:17 PM
307 Views
It's really not.
- 07/07/2011 12:20:10 AM
643 Views
i'm really not
- 07/07/2011 03:34:23 PM
714 Views
Fine as far as it goes, but public/private only matters to the extent others are affected.
- 09/07/2011 11:15:33 AM
678 Views
Holding the phone here might be good, yes.... 
- 06/07/2011 10:33:46 PM
698 Views
- 06/07/2011 10:33:46 PM
698 Views
See...that's the difference between you and me
- 06/07/2011 10:56:53 PM
802 Views
Apparently so; "completely anarchy as long as its regulated to one's body" sounds nonsensical to me.
- 06/07/2011 11:44:50 PM
804 Views
I'm with Joel. I always buckle up/helmet up, but I think such laws are asinine
- 06/07/2011 02:30:04 AM
467 Views
why not just ban motorcycles all together, they are much more dangerous than cars
- 06/07/2011 05:39:51 PM
481 Views
Helmets help save lives. 'Onest.
- 07/07/2011 04:40:42 PM
645 Views
So do not smoking, eating right and regular exercise, but we haven't made them mandatory.
- 09/07/2011 11:04:58 AM
653 Views