Aa
Health care law's unpopularity reaches new highs
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/06/18781204-health-care-laws-unpopularity-reaches-new-highs?lite
By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News
President Barack Obama's signature health care reform law remains unpopular with the American public just months before it fully goes into effect, according to the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
The poll shows 49 percent of Americans say they believe the Affordable Care Act is a bad idea. That’s the highest number recorded on this question since the poll began measuring it in 2009. Just 37 percent say the plan is a good idea.
As the political battle over implementation of the law heats up in Washington, the numbers mark an increase in unpopularity since July 2012, right after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Obama’s overhaul. Back then, 44 percent of NBC/WSJ poll respondents called it a bad idea, vs. 40 percent who called it a good one.
Mandel Ngan / Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images
President Barack Obama speaks on the Affordable Care Act in this file photo from May 10, 2013 in the East Room of the White House.
Advertise | AdChoices
GOP leaders have been unrelenting in their calls to reverse the law. "For the sake of my constituents in Kentucky and for the sake of Americans across the country, I urge my friends on the other side to join with Republicans and stop this ‘train wreck’ before things get even worse," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on the Senate floor in April.
Obama countered earlier this year, "Despite all the hue and cry and 'sky is falling' predictions about this stuff, if you've already got health insurance, then that part of Obamacare that affects you, it’s pretty much already in place. And that’s about 85 percent of the country.”
"What is left to be implemented is those provisions to help the 10 to 15 percent of the American public that is unlucky enough that they don’t have health insurance," he added.
Pollsters Fred Yang and Micah Roberts join The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd to talk about the latest poll numbers.
For individuals, the current poll also finds 38 percent of respondents saying that they (and their families) will be worse off under the health care law. That’s the highest percentage of respondents to express a negative outlook toward “Obamacare” since 2010, when the president signed this signature piece of legislation into law following an extended, bruising battle in Congress.
By comparison, 19 percent say they'll be better off, and 39 percent say the law won't make much of a difference.
The poll, however, shows deep divisions by political party and health insurance status.
By a 35 percent-to-11 percent margin, Democrats say they'll be better off under the health care law. But Republicans say they'll be worse off, 67 percent to 4 percent.
What's more, those who currently don't have health insurance have a more positive view of the health-care law than those who have insurance -- either through individual purchase or through their employer.
Majority backs pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants
Meanwhile, with bipartisan immigration reform legislation expected to hit the Senate floor next week, the NBC/WSJ poll shows a slight majority -- 52 percent -- saying they support a proposed pathway to allow undocumented immigrants to become U.S. citizens.
When told that the proposed pathway to citizenship under the legislation includes requirements to pay fines, back taxes and pass a background security check, the percentage favoring it jumps up to 65 percent, including 58 percent of Republicans.
NBC's Chuck Todd joins Andrea Mitchell Reports to discuss the latest NBC News/ WSJ poll and the changes to President Barack Obama's national security team.
But respondents are divided over whether Congress should pass an immigration bill by the end of the current Congress: 47 percent say they would be upset if Congress doesn't pass a bill, and that includes a majority of Democrats (54 percent).
But an equal 47 percent say they wouldn't be upset if Congress doesn’t pass immigration legislation, and that includes a majority of Republicans (53 percent).
Strikingly, the partisan divisions have flipped since this question was last asked in 2006, when former President George W. Bush was supporting comprehensive immigration reform.
Back then, more than six-in-10 Republicans said they would be upset if immigration reform didn't pass, and an almost equal percentage of Democrats -- who were out of power in the White House -- said they wouldn't be upset.
The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted May 30-June 2 of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents), and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.
By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News
President Barack Obama's signature health care reform law remains unpopular with the American public just months before it fully goes into effect, according to the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
The poll shows 49 percent of Americans say they believe the Affordable Care Act is a bad idea. That’s the highest number recorded on this question since the poll began measuring it in 2009. Just 37 percent say the plan is a good idea.
As the political battle over implementation of the law heats up in Washington, the numbers mark an increase in unpopularity since July 2012, right after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Obama’s overhaul. Back then, 44 percent of NBC/WSJ poll respondents called it a bad idea, vs. 40 percent who called it a good one.
Mandel Ngan / Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images
President Barack Obama speaks on the Affordable Care Act in this file photo from May 10, 2013 in the East Room of the White House.
Advertise | AdChoices
GOP leaders have been unrelenting in their calls to reverse the law. "For the sake of my constituents in Kentucky and for the sake of Americans across the country, I urge my friends on the other side to join with Republicans and stop this ‘train wreck’ before things get even worse," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on the Senate floor in April.
Obama countered earlier this year, "Despite all the hue and cry and 'sky is falling' predictions about this stuff, if you've already got health insurance, then that part of Obamacare that affects you, it’s pretty much already in place. And that’s about 85 percent of the country.”
"What is left to be implemented is those provisions to help the 10 to 15 percent of the American public that is unlucky enough that they don’t have health insurance," he added.
Pollsters Fred Yang and Micah Roberts join The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd to talk about the latest poll numbers.
For individuals, the current poll also finds 38 percent of respondents saying that they (and their families) will be worse off under the health care law. That’s the highest percentage of respondents to express a negative outlook toward “Obamacare” since 2010, when the president signed this signature piece of legislation into law following an extended, bruising battle in Congress.
By comparison, 19 percent say they'll be better off, and 39 percent say the law won't make much of a difference.
The poll, however, shows deep divisions by political party and health insurance status.
By a 35 percent-to-11 percent margin, Democrats say they'll be better off under the health care law. But Republicans say they'll be worse off, 67 percent to 4 percent.
What's more, those who currently don't have health insurance have a more positive view of the health-care law than those who have insurance -- either through individual purchase or through their employer.
Majority backs pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants
Meanwhile, with bipartisan immigration reform legislation expected to hit the Senate floor next week, the NBC/WSJ poll shows a slight majority -- 52 percent -- saying they support a proposed pathway to allow undocumented immigrants to become U.S. citizens.
When told that the proposed pathway to citizenship under the legislation includes requirements to pay fines, back taxes and pass a background security check, the percentage favoring it jumps up to 65 percent, including 58 percent of Republicans.
NBC's Chuck Todd joins Andrea Mitchell Reports to discuss the latest NBC News/ WSJ poll and the changes to President Barack Obama's national security team.
But respondents are divided over whether Congress should pass an immigration bill by the end of the current Congress: 47 percent say they would be upset if Congress doesn't pass a bill, and that includes a majority of Democrats (54 percent).
But an equal 47 percent say they wouldn't be upset if Congress doesn’t pass immigration legislation, and that includes a majority of Republicans (53 percent).
Strikingly, the partisan divisions have flipped since this question was last asked in 2006, when former President George W. Bush was supporting comprehensive immigration reform.
Back then, more than six-in-10 Republicans said they would be upset if immigration reform didn't pass, and an almost equal percentage of Democrats -- who were out of power in the White House -- said they wouldn't be upset.
The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted May 30-June 2 of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents), and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.
"The U.S. medical system is absurdly expensive. You knew that already. But you probably didn't realize just how absurdly expensive it is compared to other countries.
These 21 graphs (one of them you'll see above) from the International Federation of Health Plans, via Ezra Klein, start to paint the picture. The average routine office visit in the U.S. is three-times more expensive than in Canada. The average CT scan is five-times more expensive than in Canada. And as a share of GDP, our health care costs are an ignominious colossus towering over the rest of the world:
Graphs
In the U.S. health care system, everything costs more. Being in a hospital cost more. Because our drugs cost more (prescription drug prices can be 10X the rate in the UK or Germany). And our doctors cost more (a US family physician makes 3X her German counterpart). Because their education costs more (the education for a German physician's education is nearly free). And on it goes.
Why is American health care so expensive? Books could be written about this topic. And books have been written about this topic. In The Healing of America, T. D. Reid explored why American medicine falls behind other countries in quality while it races far ahead in cost of care.
Near the end of the book, Reid expands on two big reasons why U.S. health care is so expensive: (1) Unlike other countries, the U.S. government doesn't manage prices; and (2) the complications created by our for-profit system adds tremendous costs.
First, it really starts with the prices. While some developed countries have one health care insurance plan for everybody -- where the government either sets prices or oversees price negotiations -- the U.S. is unique in our reliance on for-profit insurance companies to pay for both essential and elective care. Twenty cents from every $1 goes, not to health care, but to "marketing, underwriting, administration, and profit," he says. In a system where government doesn't negotiate prices down, prices will be higher. In a system where for-profit companies need profit margins and advertising, prices will be higher.
Second, the absurd complexity of U.S. health care creates its own costs. There is a separate health care system for seniors, veterans, military personnel, Native Americans, end-stage renal failure, under 16 in a poor family, over 16 in a poor family, and working for the federal government, Reid writes. That's on top of hundreds of private plans:
All these systems require another inefficiency -- the existence of compilers, middlemen who compile the bills doctors submit and shuttle them thru the payment system. The US Government Accountability Office concluded that if we could get administrative costs of our medical system down to the Canadian level, the money saved would be enough to pay for health care for all the Americans who are uninsured.
It's not like all this money buys us nothing. Complexity creates jobs, for high- and low-skilled workers alike. American health care is the world's envy in some categories, especially in cancer care, wait times, and access to new technologies for affluent and insured families. We have the highest share of adults (90 percent) who report being in good health. The OECD average is 69 percent. But in terms of coverage and cost, we rank embarrassingly low among developed countries. It would be nice to say this is a bug of the American medical system. But it's a feature. It's a choice we've made. In some countries, government sets a lower price and doesn't charge patients for marketing and margins. To this model, we've essentially said: No, thanks.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/why-is-american-health-care-so-ridiculously-expensive/274425/#comments
These 21 graphs (one of them you'll see above) from the International Federation of Health Plans, via Ezra Klein, start to paint the picture. The average routine office visit in the U.S. is three-times more expensive than in Canada. The average CT scan is five-times more expensive than in Canada. And as a share of GDP, our health care costs are an ignominious colossus towering over the rest of the world:
Graphs
In the U.S. health care system, everything costs more. Being in a hospital cost more. Because our drugs cost more (prescription drug prices can be 10X the rate in the UK or Germany). And our doctors cost more (a US family physician makes 3X her German counterpart). Because their education costs more (the education for a German physician's education is nearly free). And on it goes.
Why is American health care so expensive? Books could be written about this topic. And books have been written about this topic. In The Healing of America, T. D. Reid explored why American medicine falls behind other countries in quality while it races far ahead in cost of care.
Near the end of the book, Reid expands on two big reasons why U.S. health care is so expensive: (1) Unlike other countries, the U.S. government doesn't manage prices; and (2) the complications created by our for-profit system adds tremendous costs.
First, it really starts with the prices. While some developed countries have one health care insurance plan for everybody -- where the government either sets prices or oversees price negotiations -- the U.S. is unique in our reliance on for-profit insurance companies to pay for both essential and elective care. Twenty cents from every $1 goes, not to health care, but to "marketing, underwriting, administration, and profit," he says. In a system where government doesn't negotiate prices down, prices will be higher. In a system where for-profit companies need profit margins and advertising, prices will be higher.
Second, the absurd complexity of U.S. health care creates its own costs. There is a separate health care system for seniors, veterans, military personnel, Native Americans, end-stage renal failure, under 16 in a poor family, over 16 in a poor family, and working for the federal government, Reid writes. That's on top of hundreds of private plans:
All these systems require another inefficiency -- the existence of compilers, middlemen who compile the bills doctors submit and shuttle them thru the payment system. The US Government Accountability Office concluded that if we could get administrative costs of our medical system down to the Canadian level, the money saved would be enough to pay for health care for all the Americans who are uninsured.
It's not like all this money buys us nothing. Complexity creates jobs, for high- and low-skilled workers alike. American health care is the world's envy in some categories, especially in cancer care, wait times, and access to new technologies for affluent and insured families. We have the highest share of adults (90 percent) who report being in good health. The OECD average is 69 percent. But in terms of coverage and cost, we rank embarrassingly low among developed countries. It would be nice to say this is a bug of the American medical system. But it's a feature. It's a choice we've made. In some countries, government sets a lower price and doesn't charge patients for marketing and margins. To this model, we've essentially said: No, thanks.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/why-is-american-health-care-so-ridiculously-expensive/274425/#comments
Oh I am one hundred percent sure it will have to be tweeked.. No doubt about it and it will not be perfect either but with the low expectations that people seem to have, that just means they wont be disappointed eh? I think it depends on ones personal situation as to their view on this. No more pre existing is a good thing because that allows everyone medical care, which is totally different than the way things have been and while you may go years without using it, you have still paid less in premiums than that hospital bill you may incur as a result of not carrying it. And like I said, Im sure that the same restiistance was there with medicare and ss. Can you imagine? But im all for single payor as you know already....
"If your used to free you are not gonna like paying for something you currently get for nothing"
See, I think that is part of the whole thing. I think the government making people buy into something sits real bad with a lot of people. And I'm talking about people who are currently insured as well. There are a lot of folks who don't have the world of trust in our government, and this is just part of it.
I just don't think the people are too keen with the idea of government telling us what is good for us when they are having such a hard time governing themselves.
I think there probably is a way to make the ACA work, but I don't think we are going about it the right way. I think there needs to be a lot of changes in regards to the cost of procedures (we were talking about this the other day). There needs to be some regulation with cost, after care, and pharmaceuticals and there needs to be a lot done in the amount of fraud that is out there.
I'm not smart enough to figure this whole thing out, but I personally would be giving due diligence to the reform aspect. Without that, there will still be fraud and it will continue to affect the cost of health care.
I know this is anecdotal, but in our little community, we have so many people who incur health care bills via our emergency room who then walk away from them. These are typically people who really don't have the intention of paying their bills anyway, so forcing those people to buy insurance (with money they apparently don't have) and then still end up with a bill after a visit to the emergency room.... I don't know, but I hate the idea of "just wait and see".
See, I think that is part of the whole thing. I think the government making people buy into something sits real bad with a lot of people. And I'm talking about people who are currently insured as well. There are a lot of folks who don't have the world of trust in our government, and this is just part of it.
I just don't think the people are too keen with the idea of government telling us what is good for us when they are having such a hard time governing themselves.
I think there probably is a way to make the ACA work, but I don't think we are going about it the right way. I think there needs to be a lot of changes in regards to the cost of procedures (we were talking about this the other day). There needs to be some regulation with cost, after care, and pharmaceuticals and there needs to be a lot done in the amount of fraud that is out there.
I'm not smart enough to figure this whole thing out, but I personally would be giving due diligence to the reform aspect. Without that, there will still be fraud and it will continue to affect the cost of health care.
I know this is anecdotal, but in our little community, we have so many people who incur health care bills via our emergency room who then walk away from them. These are typically people who really don't have the intention of paying their bills anyway, so forcing those people to buy insurance (with money they apparently don't have) and then still end up with a bill after a visit to the emergency room.... I don't know, but I hate the idea of "just wait and see".
She doesn't really go 'free' as she pays if she needs to go. Most urgent cares have regular primary care doctors in my area and they have fee for service plans for people to pay as they see them. Not really free.
It is funny how we do all keep insurance. I can go a long time (as in years) in seeing a doctor. My kids haven't been to the doctor this year since their well check birthday visit. But we have it 'in case', right? So, I pay a bundle but don't really use it. All about having it in case you should need it. For some, I can see playing the odds during the years in which one is predominantly healthy. That is what my friend does.
Anyway, lots of people do not carry insurance but also do not use government assistance for their healthcare. They wouldn't qualify for it. Instead, they take less traditional routes while they can and whether we think that is smart or not, it used to be their choice.
I guess I still struggle with telling people they have to have health insurance. They'll just pay the penalty in some cases as that is cheaper than carrying the health insurance.
Just call me gloomy on the ACA. But remember, I'm not a fan of it so that should be expected. :>)
It is funny how we do all keep insurance. I can go a long time (as in years) in seeing a doctor. My kids haven't been to the doctor this year since their well check birthday visit. But we have it 'in case', right? So, I pay a bundle but don't really use it. All about having it in case you should need it. For some, I can see playing the odds during the years in which one is predominantly healthy. That is what my friend does.
Anyway, lots of people do not carry insurance but also do not use government assistance for their healthcare. They wouldn't qualify for it. Instead, they take less traditional routes while they can and whether we think that is smart or not, it used to be their choice.
I guess I still struggle with telling people they have to have health insurance. They'll just pay the penalty in some cases as that is cheaper than carrying the health insurance.
Just call me gloomy on the ACA. But remember, I'm not a fan of it so that should be expected. :>)
Ironically, the mandate was put in place for exactly people like your friend who has no insurance. Mandating that she and others who are uninsured carry it is what brings the price down for everyone involved and is one of the reasons right now why premiums for carriers are so high in order to cover the expenses of people like her and those who do not for what ever reason carry it? If your used to free you are not gonna like paying for something you currently get for nothing
I do agree. Many many questions. People are worried in my own state due to all of the 'unknowns'. Unicorn toots (we don't say the F word in my house) and fairy rainbows are needed to make it all work out seamlessly. Interestingly, I talked to a person I know without insurance that is unhappy she is going to be mandated to get it. We forget about that. Penalties for those who do not wish to participate.
The lack of education, the secrecy, the lack of information and the abundance of misinformation is the reason this thing lies where it does.
So much more could have been done to make this the shiny now penny it is supposed to be.
So much more could have been done to make this the shiny now penny it is supposed to be.
I think any program like ss or medicare or any other underwent the same kind of scrutiny that this is experiencing. With that said I am totally upset at how they have dropped the ball on the education of this thing too.
Now one of the problems will be that 20 something states I hear are choosing to opt out of medicare expansion program which will mean that countless people will not be able to reap the benefits of this program. I know here in fl this is the case and they are offering us up to private insurance companies. So lets deprive the people from getting the benefits we voted for and serve us up to their lobbiests..... Oh joy! 2014 cannot come soon enuff governor!
Now one of the problems will be that 20 something states I hear are choosing to opt out of medicare expansion program which will mean that countless people will not be able to reap the benefits of this program. I know here in fl this is the case and they are offering us up to private insurance companies. So lets deprive the people from getting the benefits we voted for and serve us up to their lobbiests..... Oh joy! 2014 cannot come soon enuff governor!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/krugman-the-obamacare-shock.html?_r=0
Spin it however you want. IT IS WORKING....
Spin it however you want. IT IS WORKING....
Maybe the Article should have been read a little closer before posting it. It doesn’t seem to help promote ACA very well.
“Officials in the Democrat-led state recently released figures that show insurers expect to charge lower-than-expected premiums for individual policies sold under the law.”
EXPECT???
“The state has not released an estimate of how the proposed rates compare with current rates. The law’s supporters say even if the new plans are more expensive, it is because they offer better benefits than the old plans”
even if the new plans are more expensive????
“In California, officials say they aggressively negotiated with insurers to keep the rates low. They also said that competition among the insurers is holding rates down.
If healthy people choose to skip coverage and instead pay the mandated tax penalty, it could hurt the government’s efforts to bring enough healthy people into the insurance pool. Those healthy people are needed to offset the cost of sick people; insurers are expecting an influx of them.
While California has touted the rates proposed by insurers, some say the news is not all good. Some large national insurance companies, including Aetna and UnitedHealth, are not offering plans on the state exchange. And many of the plans on the exchange offer a narrow choice of doctors and hospitals.”
EXPECTING????
“On the eve of his comments, however, a different story emerged from Ohio. Officials in the Republican-led administration Thursday released details about rates proposed by insurers there, estimating that they represented an 88 percent increase in the cost of coverage that would likely lead to a substantial increase in premiums.
“We have warned of these increases,” Ohio Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor (R) said in a statement. “The Department’s initial analysis of the proposed rates show consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014.”
“I suppose the question is, are we finally getting a release without spin, or are we getting Republican spin?” said Robert Laszewski, a health-care consultant and former insurance executive. “Like California, we are getting the data they want us to see.”
“Officials in the Democrat-led state recently released figures that show insurers expect to charge lower-than-expected premiums for individual policies sold under the law.”
EXPECT???
“The state has not released an estimate of how the proposed rates compare with current rates. The law’s supporters say even if the new plans are more expensive, it is because they offer better benefits than the old plans”
even if the new plans are more expensive????
“In California, officials say they aggressively negotiated with insurers to keep the rates low. They also said that competition among the insurers is holding rates down.
If healthy people choose to skip coverage and instead pay the mandated tax penalty, it could hurt the government’s efforts to bring enough healthy people into the insurance pool. Those healthy people are needed to offset the cost of sick people; insurers are expecting an influx of them.
While California has touted the rates proposed by insurers, some say the news is not all good. Some large national insurance companies, including Aetna and UnitedHealth, are not offering plans on the state exchange. And many of the plans on the exchange offer a narrow choice of doctors and hospitals.”
EXPECTING????
“On the eve of his comments, however, a different story emerged from Ohio. Officials in the Republican-led administration Thursday released details about rates proposed by insurers there, estimating that they represented an 88 percent increase in the cost of coverage that would likely lead to a substantial increase in premiums.
“We have warned of these increases,” Ohio Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor (R) said in a statement. “The Department’s initial analysis of the proposed rates show consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014.”
“I suppose the question is, are we finally getting a release without spin, or are we getting Republican spin?” said Robert Laszewski, a health-care consultant and former insurance executive. “Like California, we are getting the data they want us to see.”
And California can use all the help it can get. There is a big question out there about peoples health care plans under their retirement plans.
Its working just fine in CA...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/06/california-is-the-white-houses-proof-that-obamacare-is-working/
Let me guess, its a fluke right?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/06/california-is-the-white-houses-proof-that-obamacare-is-working/
Let me guess, its a fluke right?
Hahahaha..that is a good one.
Yes they do, that's where Rainbow Dreams come from.
Unicorns do *not* fart.
I still can't see all of the beauty in it.... (You forgot to mention unicorn farts and rainbow dreams with the pixie dust....)
I think what happened is, most people knew The ACA was a Cluster F%#@ but is so naïve they actually thought our Government would have worked out all the issues before 2014. Now the Pixie Dust is wearing off and reality is setting in.
I don’t think California is a fair example to use by either side.
I don’t think California is a fair example to use by either side.
(The writer also stated something long the lines of, "if you are researching the subject and find yourself more confused, you are amongst a growing group of Americans.)
I just read a story on "educating the public on the ACA" the other day from a writer from the Washington Post (I think.). He summed it up by saying that there was not enough education about the program and too many explanations lack clarity.
(He referenced "wait and see" and said that today's consumers don't want to wait and see and prefer to know as much as they can before they buy into anything.)
(He referenced "wait and see" and said that today's consumers don't want to wait and see and prefer to know as much as they can before they buy into anything.)
"Dems have really dropped the ball on the education part of this and republicans have gone way over the top in buying negative ads and selling that."
For real....
For real....
I saw a chart on cnn yesterday that showed the difference between anti health care ad money spent, as opposed to pro healthcare ad money spent. 99 percent of all money spent was done so on anti ads. There in lies the problem. Dems have really dropped the ball on the education part of this and republicans have gone way over the top in buying negative ads and selling that.
However, California has enacted it, its working, premiums are down, and it seems to be working well. Go figure!
However, California has enacted it, its working, premiums are down, and it seems to be working well. Go figure!
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
