3 ms·

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 re

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
      Thanks for sharing. Looks like anywhere from 2-10% could be reasonable. Even if it's 2%, that's almost $50B a year. There isn't just one problem in healthcare; we'll need to solve multiple problems. FTR, I think my original post did have several points that pertained to nonemergency care as well.

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
    Thanks for sharing. Looks like anywhere from 2-10% could be reasonable. Even if it's 2%, that's almost $50B a year. There isn't just one problem in healthcare; we'll need to solve multiple problems. FTR, I think my original post did have several points that pertained to nonemergency care as well.