Healthcare Industry Profit Margins...

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Phokus
So if insurance companies weren't kicking expensive sick people off their rolls and had to cover people with pre-existing conditions, they might be in the red? AHAHAHAHAHAHA

That, combined with their sky high overhead, that is a really sad testament to health insurance in America today.

Why should an insurance company be mandated to cover someone with a pre existing condition? That would be like forcing a life insurance company to insure someone with a terminal illness.

Dear Patranus: Please get on TV and say this so people will finally wake the fuck up and destroy the health insurance companies once and for all.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Patranus

You don't think government bureaucracies have overhead?

Currently implemented UHC by the govt. has much less overhead than for profit insurers do ...

The quality of health care in those countries is less than in the U.S. Quality costs money. We have the best care, what is at debate is paying for that care.


And you know what "overhead" is? It's someone's job. You know, something that we don't have much of anymore. Seen the latest jobless numbers? All the "waste" you guys are being told is sucked out of us, most of it is going right back into the economy.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80
Apple has like a 15% profit margin. Why don't they vilify them?

Apple creates products and services. It contributes to GDP. Insurance companies simply take a cut of healthcare spending, they don't actually provide any health care themselves. If you think they do, go to insurance company headquarters instead of hospital next time you are sick.

Using your logic Apple does not provide a single product. According to you Apple didn't actually create an iPhone, FoxConn created the iPhone. Go to Apples headquarters and try and find the Apply manufacturing plant.

Oh, by the way, Kaiser Permente owns all of its hospitals and is continuously building new hospitals...So yes, insurance companies do "create" healthcare.

Apple designed the iPhone. Most of the value of that phone is in the design, not manufacturing. Take away the Apple design and software, and you have a worthless piece of plastic. So Apple created value and is being rewarded for it.
This cannot be said for insurance companies. They have not created any healthcare product or service, but simply positioned themselves as middleman who takes a cut of the action without doing anything for the consumer's health.
Kaiser is exception, because it is a health-care provider, not just insurer. Purely insurance like Aetna, UnitedHealth, Cigna etc don't create any healthcare. They don't add value to the economy, simply take a cut and are a net drag on the economy.

What, specifically, does any type of "insurance" company create? Are you against ALL forms of privatized insurance, or just healthcare? If so, why?

I am against privatized insurance for baseline and preventative care. Insurance is for unexpected events and emergencies, not for necessities. Regular preventative and basic health care is a necessity, not an unexpected event. Getting a physical every year is not something one should need insurance for, unless you think that getting physicals should be an unexpected event.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus
And without FoxConn all of Apples pretty little designs and OS would be stuck in autoCAD.

Because there are no other OEM manufacturer out there :roll:

And there are multiple insurance companies :roll:

This entire health care discussion is like saying that everyone has a right to a phone so we are going to give them all an iPhone instead of some throwaway phone. The fact of the matter is that we have out "throwaway phone" of healthcare right now, and that is the ability for anyone regardless of age, sex, race, or ability to pay to walk into a hospital can receive health care.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: senseamp
Government can provide buying power of insurance company without taking a 20% cut of the premium for overhead and profit. If having a large base of users is the main advantage, can get a really large base with universal single payer health care.

All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You just don't concentrate that much wealth and that much power into a single system. I don't care how efficiently you think it could run.

Well, we concentrated this power in an oligopoly of insurance companies, which are absolutely corrupted. I don't care what you say, but if they shamelessly rescind people's coverage when they get cancer, they have demonstrated that very clearly.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Patranus

You don't think government bureaucracies have overhead?

Currently implemented UHC by the govt. has much less overhead than for profit insurers do ...

The quality of health care in those countries is less than in the U.S. Quality costs money. We have the best care, what is at debate is paying for that care.


And you know what "overhead" is? It's someone's job. You know, something that we don't have much of anymore. Seen the latest jobless numbers? All the "waste" you guys are being told is sucked out of us, most of it is going right back into the economy.

Thought the bolded was obvious enough to indicate I was talking about Medicare/aid. Guess I was wrong.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: senseamp
Government can provide buying power of insurance company without taking a 20% cut of the premium for overhead and profit. If having a large base of users is the main advantage, can get a really large base with universal single payer health care.

All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You just don't concentrate that much wealth and that much power into a single system. I don't care how efficiently you think it could run.

Well, we concentrated this power in an oligopoly of insurance companies, which are absolutely corrupted. I don't care what you say, but if they shamelessly rescind people's coverage when they get cancer, they have demonstrated that very clearly.

What to .001% of the people out there? People who didn't read what they were buying when they bought it? Sounds like the same people who bought houses without reading the APR mortgage and then bitching because their rates reset and they got foreclosed on.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus
And without FoxConn all of Apples pretty little designs and OS would be stuck in autoCAD.

Because there are no other OEM manufacturer out there :roll:

And there are multiple insurance companies :roll:

This entire health care discussion is like saying that everyone has a right to a phone so we are going to give them all an iPhone instead of some throwaway phone. The fact of the matter is that we have out "throwaway phone" of healthcare right now, and that is the ability for anyone regardless of age, sex, race, or ability to pay to walk into a hospital can receive health care.

Yeah, so we all agree that everyone should have health care. The only question is should this only be the least cost effective late stage emergency care with worst outcomes, or should we cover people so they can get early care and prevent expensive emergencies from happening in the first place. If you want to control costs, you would want to treat people when it's the cheapest and most effective.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80
Apple has like a 15% profit margin. Why don't they vilify them?

Apple creates products and services. It contributes to GDP. Insurance companies simply take a cut of healthcare spending, they don't actually provide any health care themselves. If you think they do, go to insurance company headquarters instead of hospital next time you are sick.

Using your logic Apple does not provide a single product. According to you Apple didn't actually create an iPhone, FoxConn created the iPhone. Go to Apples headquarters and try and find the Apply manufacturing plant.

Oh, by the way, Kaiser Permente owns all of its hospitals and is continuously building new hospitals...So yes, insurance companies do "create" healthcare.

Apple designed the iPhone. Most of the value of that phone is in the design, not manufacturing. Take away the Apple design and software, and you have a worthless piece of plastic. So Apple created value and is being rewarded for it.
This cannot be said for insurance companies. They have not created any healthcare product or service, but simply positioned themselves as middleman who takes a cut of the action without doing anything for the consumer's health.
Kaiser is exception, because it is a health-care provider, not just insurer. Purely insurance like Aetna, UnitedHealth, Cigna etc don't create any healthcare. They don't add value to the economy, simply take a cut and are a net drag on the economy.

What, specifically, does any type of "insurance" company create? Are you against ALL forms of privatized insurance, or just healthcare? If so, why?

I am against privatized insurance for baseline and preventative care. Insurance is for unexpected events and emergencies, not for necessities. Regular preventative and basic health care is a necessity, not an unexpected event. Getting a physical every year is not something one should need insurance for, unless you think that getting physicals should be an unexpected event.

Fair enough. So why then, in your desired version of UHC, should the Government involve itself with the "unexpected events" as well?

I might even be fine with a simple universal system that only covers regularly scheduled appointments, but that's not really what you're pimping now, is it?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: cubby1223


And you know what "overhead" is? It's someone's job. You know, something that we don't have much of anymore. Seen the latest jobless numbers? All the "waste" you guys are being told is sucked out of us, most of it is going right back into the economy.

The same could be said about government spending. Waste = waste = more spending by you to cover it. You don't mind paying more for something that should be cheaper...that's your problem. I don't like it at all.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus
And without FoxConn all of Apples pretty little designs and OS would be stuck in autoCAD.

Because there are no other OEM manufacturer out there :roll:

And there are multiple insurance companies :roll:

This entire health care discussion is like saying that everyone has a right to a phone so we are going to give them all an iPhone instead of some throwaway phone. The fact of the matter is that we have out "throwaway phone" of healthcare right now, and that is the ability for anyone regardless of age, sex, race, or ability to pay to walk into a hospital can receive health care.

Yeah, so we all agree that everyone should have health care. The only question is should this only be the least cost effective late stage emergency care with worst outcomes, or should we cover people so they can get early care and prevent expensive emergencies from happening in the first place. If you want to control costs, you would want to treat people when it's the cheapest and most effective.

How do you say it controls costs when the CBO says it will cost an additional 1.6 trillion dollars?

 

[JayhaVVKU]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80
Apple has like a 15% profit margin. Why don't they vilify them?

Apple creates products and services. It contributes to GDP. Insurance companies simply take a cut of healthcare spending, they don't actually provide any health care themselves. If you think they do, go to insurance company headquarters instead of hospital next time you are sick.

Using your logic Apple does not provide a single product. According to you Apple didn't actually create an iPhone, FoxConn created the iPhone. Go to Apples headquarters and try and find the Apply manufacturing plant.

Oh, by the way, Kaiser Permente owns all of its hospitals and is continuously building new hospitals...So yes, insurance companies do "create" healthcare.

Apple designed the iPhone. Most of the value of that phone is in the design, not manufacturing. Take away the Apple design and software, and you have a worthless piece of plastic. So Apple created value and is being rewarded for it.
This cannot be said for insurance companies. They have not created any healthcare product or service, but simply positioned themselves as middleman who takes a cut of the action without doing anything for the consumer's health.
Kaiser is exception, because it is a health-care provider, not just insurer. Purely insurance like Aetna, UnitedHealth, Cigna etc don't create any healthcare. They don't add value to the economy, simply take a cut and are a net drag on the economy.

What, specifically, does any type of "insurance" company create? Are you against ALL forms of privatized insurance, or just healthcare? If so, why?

I am against health insurance because it's immoral and wellness is a right of EVERYONE.

I am for car insurance because driving is a privelage.

I am for homeowners insurance because owning a house is a privelage.

Etc.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: JayhaVVKU

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80
Apple has like a 15% profit margin. Why don't they vilify them?

Apple creates products and services. It contributes to GDP. Insurance companies simply take a cut of healthcare spending, they don't actually provide any health care themselves. If you think they do, go to insurance company headquarters instead of hospital next time you are sick.

Using your logic Apple does not provide a single product. According to you Apple didn't actually create an iPhone, FoxConn created the iPhone. Go to Apples headquarters and try and find the Apply manufacturing plant.

Oh, by the way, Kaiser Permente owns all of its hospitals and is continuously building new hospitals...So yes, insurance companies do "create" healthcare.

Apple designed the iPhone. Most of the value of that phone is in the design, not manufacturing. Take away the Apple design and software, and you have a worthless piece of plastic. So Apple created value and is being rewarded for it.
This cannot be said for insurance companies. They have not created any healthcare product or service, but simply positioned themselves as middleman who takes a cut of the action without doing anything for the consumer's health.
Kaiser is exception, because it is a health-care provider, not just insurer. Purely insurance like Aetna, UnitedHealth, Cigna etc don't create any healthcare. They don't add value to the economy, simply take a cut and are a net drag on the economy.

What, specifically, does any type of "insurance" company create? Are you against ALL forms of privatized insurance, or just healthcare? If so, why?

I am against health insurance because it's immoral and wellness is a right of EVERYONE.

I am for car insurance because driving is a privelage.

I am for homeowners insurance because owning a house is a privelage.

Etc.

ANYONE can get medical care in this country regardless of their age, legal status, sex, race, or ability to pay...RIGHT NOW...

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: senseamp
Government can provide buying power of insurance company without taking a 20% cut of the premium for overhead and profit. If having a large base of users is the main advantage, can get a really large base with universal single payer health care.

All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You just don't concentrate that much wealth and that much power into a single system. I don't care how efficiently you think it could run.

Well, we concentrated this power in an oligopoly of insurance companies, which are absolutely corrupted. I don't care what you say, but if they shamelessly rescind people's coverage when they get cancer, they have demonstrated that very clearly.

What to .001% of the people out there? People who didn't read what they were buying when they bought it? Sounds like the same people who bought houses without reading the APR mortgage and then bitching because their rates reset and they got foreclosed on.

That's tens of thousands of people given an effective death sentence by their insurance companies refusing to pay for life saving care. And no, it's not same as APR mortgage at all. APR mortgage does not allow the bank to take away your house if you are still making payments on it.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Patranus
ANYONE can get medical care in this country regardless of their age, legal status, sex, race, or ability to pay...RIGHT NOW...

Because the government mandates it to be so?
You can't be opposed to government health insurance, and use government mandated treatment as an argument in your favor at the same time.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus
ANYONE can get medical care in this country regardless of their age, legal status, sex, race, or ability to pay...RIGHT NOW...

Because the government mandates it to be so?
You can't be opposed to government health insurance, and use government mandated treatment as an argument in your favor at the same time.

Sure I can. One keeps things the same and the other is going to cost an additional 1.6 TRILLION dollars.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80
Apple has like a 15% profit margin. Why don't they vilify them?

Apple creates products and services. It contributes to GDP. Insurance companies simply take a cut of healthcare spending, they don't actually provide any health care themselves. If you think they do, go to insurance company headquarters instead of hospital next time you are sick.

Using your logic Apple does not provide a single product. According to you Apple didn't actually create an iPhone, FoxConn created the iPhone. Go to Apples headquarters and try and find the Apply manufacturing plant.

Oh, by the way, Kaiser Permente owns all of its hospitals and is continuously building new hospitals...So yes, insurance companies do "create" healthcare.

Apple designed the iPhone. Most of the value of that phone is in the design, not manufacturing. Take away the Apple design and software, and you have a worthless piece of plastic. So Apple created value and is being rewarded for it.
This cannot be said for insurance companies. They have not created any healthcare product or service, but simply positioned themselves as middleman who takes a cut of the action without doing anything for the consumer's health.
Kaiser is exception, because it is a health-care provider, not just insurer. Purely insurance like Aetna, UnitedHealth, Cigna etc don't create any healthcare. They don't add value to the economy, simply take a cut and are a net drag on the economy.

What, specifically, does any type of "insurance" company create? Are you against ALL forms of privatized insurance, or just healthcare? If so, why?

yeah, these guys buy all their food from farmers; all their cars at the factory; all their clothes in china... they don't use middlemen for anything...

why aren't they saying that the gov should just take over all the healthcare directly? that removes all middlemen... the gov can just decide who gets paid what and utopia is here...

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus
ANYONE can get medical care in this country regardless of their age, legal status, sex, race, or ability to pay...RIGHT NOW...

Because the government mandates it to be so?
You can't be opposed to government health insurance, and use government mandated treatment as an argument in your favor at the same time.

Sure I can. One keeps things the same and the other is going to cost an additional 1.6 TRILLION dollars.

What's going to cost 1.6 Trillion dollars? If these people can already get the care they need, as you claim, where is this additional cost you are talking about? You are saying it's going to cost more to treat them at doctor's office than ER?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80
Apple has like a 15% profit margin. Why don't they vilify them?

Apple creates products and services. It contributes to GDP. Insurance companies simply take a cut of healthcare spending, they don't actually provide any health care themselves. If you think they do, go to insurance company headquarters instead of hospital next time you are sick.

Using your logic Apple does not provide a single product. According to you Apple didn't actually create an iPhone, FoxConn created the iPhone. Go to Apples headquarters and try and find the Apply manufacturing plant.

Oh, by the way, Kaiser Permente owns all of its hospitals and is continuously building new hospitals...So yes, insurance companies do "create" healthcare.

Apple designed the iPhone. Most of the value of that phone is in the design, not manufacturing. Take away the Apple design and software, and you have a worthless piece of plastic. So Apple created value and is being rewarded for it.
This cannot be said for insurance companies. They have not created any healthcare product or service, but simply positioned themselves as middleman who takes a cut of the action without doing anything for the consumer's health.
Kaiser is exception, because it is a health-care provider, not just insurer. Purely insurance like Aetna, UnitedHealth, Cigna etc don't create any healthcare. They don't add value to the economy, simply take a cut and are a net drag on the economy.

What, specifically, does any type of "insurance" company create? Are you against ALL forms of privatized insurance, or just healthcare? If so, why?

I am against privatized insurance for baseline and preventative care. Insurance is for unexpected events and emergencies, not for necessities. Regular preventative and basic health care is a necessity, not an unexpected event. Getting a physical every year is not something one should need insurance for, unless you think that getting physicals should be an unexpected event.

Fair enough. So why then, in your desired version of UHC, should the Government involve itself with the "unexpected events" as well?

I might even be fine with a simple universal system that only covers regularly scheduled appointments, but that's not really what you're pimping now, is it?

Senseamp... well?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus
ANYONE can get medical care in this country regardless of their age, legal status, sex, race, or ability to pay...RIGHT NOW...

Because the government mandates it to be so?
You can't be opposed to government health insurance, and use government mandated treatment as an argument in your favor at the same time.

Sure I can. One keeps things the same and the other is going to cost an additional 1.6 TRILLION dollars.

What's going to cost 1.6 Trillion dollars? If these people can already get the care they need, as you claim, where is this additional cost you are talking about? You are saying it's going to cost more to treat them at doctor's office than ER?

How about street light for starters? Yes, money for street lights is in the house version of the bill to "promote healthy communities".

If this was really about getting everyone insurance we would be talking about heath savings accounts.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80
Apple has like a 15% profit margin. Why don't they vilify them?

Apple creates products and services. It contributes to GDP. Insurance companies simply take a cut of healthcare spending, they don't actually provide any health care themselves. If you think they do, go to insurance company headquarters instead of hospital next time you are sick.

Using your logic Apple does not provide a single product. According to you Apple didn't actually create an iPhone, FoxConn created the iPhone. Go to Apples headquarters and try and find the Apply manufacturing plant.

Oh, by the way, Kaiser Permente owns all of its hospitals and is continuously building new hospitals...So yes, insurance companies do "create" healthcare.

Apple designed the iPhone. Most of the value of that phone is in the design, not manufacturing. Take away the Apple design and software, and you have a worthless piece of plastic. So Apple created value and is being rewarded for it.
This cannot be said for insurance companies. They have not created any healthcare product or service, but simply positioned themselves as middleman who takes a cut of the action without doing anything for the consumer's health.
Kaiser is exception, because it is a health-care provider, not just insurer. Purely insurance like Aetna, UnitedHealth, Cigna etc don't create any healthcare. They don't add value to the economy, simply take a cut and are a net drag on the economy.

What, specifically, does any type of "insurance" company create? Are you against ALL forms of privatized insurance, or just healthcare? If so, why?

I am against privatized insurance for baseline and preventative care. Insurance is for unexpected events and emergencies, not for necessities. Regular preventative and basic health care is a necessity, not an unexpected event. Getting a physical every year is not something one should need insurance for, unless you think that getting physicals should be an unexpected event.

Fair enough. So why then, in your desired version of UHC, should the Government involve itself with the "unexpected events" as well?

I might even be fine with a simple universal system that only covers regularly scheduled appointments, but that's not really what you're pimping now, is it?

Senseamp... well?

You might as well ask him why the govt should cover the routine and affordable as well.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80
Apple has like a 15% profit margin. Why don't they vilify them?

Apple creates products and services. It contributes to GDP. Insurance companies simply take a cut of healthcare spending, they don't actually provide any health care themselves. If you think they do, go to insurance company headquarters instead of hospital next time you are sick.

Using your logic Apple does not provide a single product. According to you Apple didn't actually create an iPhone, FoxConn created the iPhone. Go to Apples headquarters and try and find the Apply manufacturing plant.

Oh, by the way, Kaiser Permente owns all of its hospitals and is continuously building new hospitals...So yes, insurance companies do "create" healthcare.

Apple designed the iPhone. Most of the value of that phone is in the design, not manufacturing. Take away the Apple design and software, and you have a worthless piece of plastic. So Apple created value and is being rewarded for it.
This cannot be said for insurance companies. They have not created any healthcare product or service, but simply positioned themselves as middleman who takes a cut of the action without doing anything for the consumer's health.
Kaiser is exception, because it is a health-care provider, not just insurer. Purely insurance like Aetna, UnitedHealth, Cigna etc don't create any healthcare. They don't add value to the economy, simply take a cut and are a net drag on the economy.

What, specifically, does any type of "insurance" company create? Are you against ALL forms of privatized insurance, or just healthcare? If so, why?

I am against privatized insurance for baseline and preventative care. Insurance is for unexpected events and emergencies, not for necessities. Regular preventative and basic health care is a necessity, not an unexpected event. Getting a physical every year is not something one should need insurance for, unless you think that getting physicals should be an unexpected event.

Fair enough. So why then, in your desired version of UHC, should the Government involve itself with the "unexpected events" as well?

I might even be fine with a simple universal system that only covers regularly scheduled appointments, but that's not really what you're pimping now, is it?

Senseamp... well?

I am for a health care system that funds all the care that we mandate ERs to provide. Since we mandate this care, we are already in agreement that it is necessary care and not optional. Since we agree that everyone should be able to get this care regardless of their ability to pay, that means that it should be covered without needing insurance.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Patranus
ANYONE can get medical care in this country regardless of their age, legal status, sex, race, or ability to pay...RIGHT NOW...

Because the government mandates it to be so?
You can't be opposed to government health insurance, and use government mandated treatment as an argument in your favor at the same time.

Sure I can. One keeps things the same and the other is going to cost an additional 1.6 TRILLION dollars.

What's going to cost 1.6 Trillion dollars? If these people can already get the care they need, as you claim, where is this additional cost you are talking about? You are saying it's going to cost more to treat them at doctor's office than ER?

How about street light for starters? Yes, money for street lights is in the house version of the bill to "promote healthy communities".

If this was really about getting everyone insurance we would be talking about heath savings accounts.

$1.6 Trillion for street lights?

 

[her209]

Lets see: http://biz.yahoo.com/p/5qpmu.html

Drug Manufacturers - Major 16.40%
Drug Delivery 13.10%
Home Health Care 9.00%
Medical Instruments & Supplies 7.90%
Medical Laboratories & Research 7.80%
Drugs - Generic 5.60%
Biotechnology 5.40%
Drug Manufacturers - Other 3.40%

Health Care Plans 3.20%

Hospitals 2.80%
Drug Related Products 2.70%
Medical Appliances & Equipment 1.80%
Specialized Health Services 0.90%
Medical Practitioners 0.10%
Long-Term Care Facilities -3.50%
Diagnostic Substances -9.50%

Keep in mind, these are MRQ's.

 

[Patranus]

Hit quote instead of edit