5 ms·

Completely disagree. Providers are not all the same. Some doctors are so incompetent they should not be allowed to practice, some are excellent. People should h

Completely disagree. Providers are not all the same. Some doctors are so incompetent they should not be allowed to practice, some are excellent. People should have full information on their providers, including costs, to be able to make informed choices.

txcwpalpha 9y ago
>Some doctors are so incompetent they should not be allowed to practice Which is yet more evidence of a failing healthcare system, and is certainly not reason to praise the concept of having to "shop around" just to get adequate and reasonably priced care.
- bluGill 9y ago
  You seem to be using the wrong (though obvious) definition of what it means to be incompetent. A doctor who is incompetent because of poor treatment is handled by the system. However there are other incompetents that someone who is medically competent can not the less fall into. The doctor with poor human interaction skills makes the patient feel horribly before, during and after treatment. The doctor who takes "bribes" to prescribe a more expensive treatment when a cheaper alternative would work as well. Those are just a couple examples of how someone can be incompetent yet still not raise to the level of not being allowed to practice.
  - txcwpalpha 9y ago
    I'm not using the wrong definition. A doctor who is considered "incompetent" because they take "bribes" should certainly be terminated by the system. If they aren't, it is a failing system.
    - bluGill 9y ago
      I put bribes in quotes for a reason. Outright bribes are handled by the system. However I'm implying any way to get around the rules without getting caught. Some are legal loopholes, some are illegal. The only point is by some way you got around the rules without getting caught.
      - txcwpalpha 9y ago
        That doesn't change my answer. If you have a system in which doctors carry out shady tactics and are able to "get around the rules without getting caught", and that system is so rife with such issues that you have to actively "shop around" to avoid them, then the system is failing.
darkerside 9y ago
This makes sense in theory, but the healthcare market isn't a great example of a free market. One example, especially for emergency care, you don't have many repeat customers (I realize there are exceptions). Word of mouth doesn't travel very far, even if people had time to examine reviews on Yelp. People aren't educated enough to understand if they received quality care or not anyway, beyond bike shedding (ie. bedside manner). If you receive poor care, you don't typically have options when it comes to getting a refund.
- repsilat 9y ago
  Emergency room costs are less than 10% of the total in the US. A popular, credible figure is 2%. In any case it's less than 100%. And even if it were 100%, wouldn't transparency provide substantial, concrete benefits? Really, I'm not sure how "some customers won't shop around" works as an argument against public knowledge of price and quality.
  - darkerside 9y ago
    Not an argument against, just an observation that it's unlikely to be part of a realistic solution to the problems we face in healthcare. Interesting point about emergency care costs. Do you have a source you could share?
    - repsilat 9y ago
      Late reply, sorry, and an old third-hand source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/28/nick-gillespie/does-emergency-care-account-just-2-percent-all-hea/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/... I figure "it can't hurt, there is a significant market failure, and price transparency can only help." I'd like to hear someone knowledgeable provide a counterargument, though. Maybe it would be expensive or impossible to enumerate those costs. Maybe preferential ("discriminatory") pricing is really important to the smooth functioning of the system.
      - darkerside 9y ago

txcwpalpha 9y ago

>Some doctors are so incompetent they should not be allowed to practice Which is yet more evidence of a failing healthcare system, and is certainly not reason to praise the concept of having to "shop around" just to get adequate and reasonably priced care.

bluGill 9y ago
You seem to be using the wrong (though obvious) definition of what it means to be incompetent. A doctor who is incompetent because of poor treatment is handled by the system. However there are other incompetents that someone who is medically competent can not the less fall into. The doctor with poor human interaction skills makes the patient feel horribly before, during and after treatment. The doctor who takes "bribes" to prescribe a more expensive treatment when a cheaper alternative would work as well. Those are just a couple examples of how someone can be incompetent yet still not raise to the level of not being allowed to practice.
- txcwpalpha 9y ago
  I'm not using the wrong definition. A doctor who is considered "incompetent" because they take "bribes" should certainly be terminated by the system. If they aren't, it is a failing system.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    I put bribes in quotes for a reason. Outright bribes are handled by the system. However I'm implying any way to get around the rules without getting caught. Some are legal loopholes, some are illegal. The only point is by some way you got around the rules without getting caught.
    - txcwpalpha 9y ago
      That doesn't change my answer. If you have a system in which doctors carry out shady tactics and are able to "get around the rules without getting caught", and that system is so rife with such issues that you have to actively "shop around" to avoid them, then the system is failing.

darkerside 9y ago

This makes sense in theory, but the healthcare market isn't a great example of a free market. One example, especially for emergency care, you don't have many repeat customers (I realize there are exceptions). Word of mouth doesn't travel very far, even if people had time to examine reviews on Yelp. People aren't educated enough to understand if they received quality care or not anyway, beyond bike shedding (ie. bedside manner). If you receive poor care, you don't typically have options when it comes to getting a refund.

repsilat 9y ago
Emergency room costs are less than 10% of the total in the US. A popular, credible figure is 2%. In any case it's less than 100%. And even if it were 100%, wouldn't transparency provide substantial, concrete benefits? Really, I'm not sure how "some customers won't shop around" works as an argument against public knowledge of price and quality.
- darkerside 9y ago
  Not an argument against, just an observation that it's unlikely to be part of a realistic solution to the problems we face in healthcare. Interesting point about emergency care costs. Do you have a source you could share?
  - repsilat 9y ago
    Late reply, sorry, and an old third-hand source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/28/nick-gillespie/does-emergency-care-account-just-2-percent-all-hea/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/... I figure "it can't hurt, there is a significant market failure, and price transparency can only help." I'd like to hear someone knowledgeable provide a counterargument, though. Maybe it would be expensive or impossible to enumerate those costs. Maybe preferential ("discriminatory") pricing is really important to the smooth functioning of the system.
    - darkerside 9y ago