4 ms·
This is a very interesting case, but I'd be cautious about it. Its not that the surgery that costs 60k, will cost 16k if you don't have administrative staff. I
by conanbatt 9y ago
This is a very interesting case, but I'd be cautious about it. Its not that the surgery that costs 60k, will cost 16k if you don't have administrative staff.
Its true administration is a huge expense, but I doubt it can make medical care cost 1/4.
Also healthcare services can never be "all round service" because any complication could mean a million things from scans to medication. Even on primary care you cant really promise to give 100% service for a fixed fee without ending up working like an insurance.
- crpatino 9y agoIt is not as if the extra $44K goes all to the admin's payroll. Rather, if you have more personnel, it means you are running a bigger, more complex operation. That demands larger facilities, more equipment, a wider range of skills in your workforce, etc, and that all costs money. Furthermore, given that all those things require heavier capital investments, it makes less likely that the surgeon performing the surgery is a (partial) owner of the hospital itself, but rather a highly compensated employee. There is a double-bite effect there: 1. The doctor's interest is less alligned with that of the hospital, so he will demand higher compensation for the same amount of work, at least of there's enough scarcity of doctors to justify it. 2. The capitalist owner will naturally expect a return of investment. It is subtle, but in this case the expected profit is proportional to the total capital investment, not the number of hours/services provided.