MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENTS #4 IN A SERIES OF 5 -- WEARING A HELMET CAN SAVE YOUR LIFE AND PREVENT SERIOUS INJURY, SUCH AS BRAIN DAMAGE, OR EVEN DEATH

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Bronx Injury Attorney)

7.  Q: Do helmet laws affect the cost of health care?

A: Unhelmeted riders have higher health care costs as a result of their crash injuries, and many lack health insurance. Studies show that hospital charges for helmet-less riders are significantly higher than for helmeted riders: ranging from 10% to 200% higher. For victims of serious brain injury, acute hospital care might be only the first stage of a long and costly treatment program. Other costs include ongoing medical care, long-term nursing care, rehabilitative therapy, and lost wages.

NHTSA reported in 2002 that the costs of injuries from motorcycle accidents, "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."

Hospital studies in states that repealed helmet laws show that the costs for treating motorcyclists for brain injury surged in the years immediately following repeal of the helmet law, and deaths increased by large percentage amounts.

"Motorcyclists who believe their right to ride with a helmet is a matter of personal choice ignore the cost to taxpayers and governments of picking up the pieces, and the tab, when they crash," said Judith Lee Stone, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. "Governors should heed our warning that state coffers are drained by hidden costs of increasing motorcycle deaths and brain injuries due to lack of helmet use. Only about 50 percent of motorcycle crash victims have private health care insurance, placing the cost burden of treatment for the other 50 percent squarely on the taxpayer's ticket."

Of the states that attempted to repeal their full use helmet laws, most did not consider the publicly assisted health care costs paid for uninsured or inadequately insured brain-injured riders and, in their analysis of the bills, failed to perceive a fiscal impact. "Only Maryland got it right in calculating the fiscal impact if its law were repealed," said Stone. Maryland's Department of Legislative Services estimated that Medicaid costs could rise by $750,000 the first year, and increase to almost a million dollars a year in later years. Debate about this fiscal impact was a factor in beating back the attempt to repeal Maryland's full-use helmet law.

Riders not using helmets sustain severe and traumatic brain injury that requires expensive long-term medical and rehabilitative care. "Clearly, public monies spent on head injuries sustained by riders without helmets means less for teachers or public safety," Stone added. "A rider's choice stops being personal when it ends up costing all of us."

A: Simply put, they are far less effective at presenting catastrophic injury than helmet laws that cover all riders. In 2007, in states with "weak" helmet laws, helmets were used by fewer than half of minors that were killed I motorcycle accidents. Helmet use for all riders remains low in states where weakened laws are in effect, and death rates are 20 to 40 percent higher when states have restricted helmet laws or no helmet laws, compared with rates that require all motorcyclists to wear helmets when riding.