3 ms·

> As someone who works in healthcare and understands the economics of the system your perception cannot be further from reality. As someone who's also worked i

> As someone who works in healthcare and understands the economics of the system your perception cannot be further from reality. As someone who's also worked in healthcare and also has an actual degree in economics, I stand by my point. In general, the CoN requirement doesn't have much of an end impact on prices for patients.

pg_bot 9y ago
I too have a degree in both Math and Economics. I started a medical clinic with the goal of reducing the cost of healthcare in the US by 50%. Our patients' out of pocket expenses for primary care are less than a typical cell phone bill on a per month basis. All of our prices are transparent and available up front. I know a bit about reducing costs. However, I will not fall back on my credentials since I prefer evidence instead of grandstanding. Here are a few links that I think could help change your mind. https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/mercatus-mitchell-con-healthcare-spending-v1a.pdf https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/mercatus-mitchell-con-... http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/11/cochrane_on_hea.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/11/cochrane_on_hea.htm... http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/10/michael_munger_4.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/10/michael_munger_4.ht... I've excerpted the following quote from the first link as I think it summarizes my viewpoint quite well. "A review of 19 peer-reviewed academic studies finds that CON laws have worked largely as economic theory predicts and that they have failed to achieve their stated goal of cost reduction. The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that CON laws are associated with both higher per unit costs and higher total expenditures. The evidence is mixed on whether CON laws have increased the efficiency of particular hospitals by channeling more patients through fewer facilities, and there is no evidence that CON decreased overall investment as its proponents had hoped. The weight of evidence suggests that CON regulations persist because they protect politically potent special interests from competition"

pg_bot 9y ago

I too have a degree in both Math and Economics. I started a medical clinic with the goal of reducing the cost of healthcare in the US by 50%. Our patients' out of pocket expenses for primary care are less than a typical cell phone bill on a per month basis. All of our prices are transparent and available up front. I know a bit about reducing costs. However, I will not fall back on my credentials since I prefer evidence instead of grandstanding. Here are a few links that I think could help change your mind. https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/mercatus-mitchell-con-healthcare-spending-v1a.pdf https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/mercatus-mitchell-con-... http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/11/cochrane_on_hea.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/11/cochrane_on_hea.htm... http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/10/michael_munger_4.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/10/michael_munger_4.ht... I've excerpted the following quote from the first link as I think it summarizes my viewpoint quite well. "A review of 19 peer-reviewed academic studies finds that CON laws have worked largely as economic theory predicts and that they have failed to achieve their stated goal of cost reduction. The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that CON laws are associated with both higher per unit costs and higher total expenditures. The evidence is mixed on whether CON laws have increased the efficiency of particular hospitals by channeling more patients through fewer facilities, and there is no evidence that CON decreased overall investment as its proponents had hoped. The weight of evidence suggests that CON regulations persist because they protect politically potent special interests from competition"