4 ms·

It's not meaningless. Because you know if the procedure costs X, and your insurance covers 80%, you know you will only pay 0.2X at most. There will be no rando

It's not meaningless. Because you know if the procedure costs X, and your insurance covers 80%, you know you will only pay 0.2X at most. There will be no random charge for thousands of dollars for something trivial. And it will introduce price competition.

txcwpalpha 8y ago
>It's not meaningless. Because you know if the procedure costs X, and your insurance covers 80%, you know you will only pay 0.2X at most. There will be no random charge for thousands of dollars for something trivial. That's not how insurance works, though. You would pay 20% of your insurance's negotiated cost, not the list price. So you could still end up paying more at a hospital that has "lower prices", based on how well your insurance negotiates with them. >And it will introduce price competition. This is not universally a good thing.
- nopinsight 8y ago
  In what ways would price competition be worse than no price competition, given that other relevant information like quality of care is available as well?
  - txcwpalpha 8y ago
    > given that other relevant information like quality of care is available as well? Well first off, that's not a given. The article only mentions Medicare using price and electronic medical records as a way of 'rating' providers. I can't find anything similar about Medicare rating providers based on quality of care. Second, look up the situation with Lasik eye clinics. Another user in this thread suggested it as a "great example of a highly functional healthcare market" driven by price competition. In reality, price competition in the Lasik market has caused eye clinics to operate more like car salesmen (complete with sales commissions, aggressive/pushy sales tactics, and deceptive marketing), and not like someone who actually has your best medical interests in mind. I'm not saying that simply introducing price competition to hospitals will lead to something like that, but it's certainly an example of price competition not being a good thing.
- curioussavage 8y ago
  At least you can see your worst case scenario.

txcwpalpha 8y ago

>It's not meaningless. Because you know if the procedure costs X, and your insurance covers 80%, you know you will only pay 0.2X at most. There will be no random charge for thousands of dollars for something trivial. That's not how insurance works, though. You would pay 20% of your insurance's negotiated cost, not the list price. So you could still end up paying more at a hospital that has "lower prices", based on how well your insurance negotiates with them. >And it will introduce price competition. This is not universally a good thing.

nopinsight 8y ago
In what ways would price competition be worse than no price competition, given that other relevant information like quality of care is available as well?
- txcwpalpha 8y ago
  > given that other relevant information like quality of care is available as well? Well first off, that's not a given. The article only mentions Medicare using price and electronic medical records as a way of 'rating' providers. I can't find anything similar about Medicare rating providers based on quality of care. Second, look up the situation with Lasik eye clinics. Another user in this thread suggested it as a "great example of a highly functional healthcare market" driven by price competition. In reality, price competition in the Lasik market has caused eye clinics to operate more like car salesmen (complete with sales commissions, aggressive/pushy sales tactics, and deceptive marketing), and not like someone who actually has your best medical interests in mind. I'm not saying that simply introducing price competition to hospitals will lead to something like that, but it's certainly an example of price competition not being a good thing.
curioussavage 8y ago
At least you can see your worst case scenario.