5 ms·

Here's my problem with it: 60+% (by eyeball) of the costs are not categorized, so there is no real guidance for reform. Outpatient care is quite high, but par

by russell 16y ago

Here's my problem with it: 60+% (by eyeball) of the costs are not categorized, so there is no real guidance for reform. Outpatient care is quite high, but part of that is because hospital visits are shorter in the US and many in-hospital procedures are actually done in clinics. A lot of people, especially the poor, go to emergency rooms for routine stuff, because they can get free treatment. But I think the US is way overbuilt in expensive diagnostic equipment. I live in a county of 250K people and there are at least 5 imaging centers that I know of. Edit: San Luis Obispo is a rural county. The largest city is only about 50K people. This kind of over building is not limited to huge metropolitan areas.

ahi 16y ago
I think capital expenditures is the start of why costs are so high. It is difficult to find a hospital these days that isn't currently renovating or expanding. Hospitals can spend however much they want because they have no pressure on their prices. The insurers don't care how much they are paying so long as it's comparable to other insurers. They can just pass along the increases to employers/individuals who are required to buy. The only pressure healthcare providers have comes from Medicare and Medicaid and whatever they lose there they can just shift to the private insurers.
- rbranson 16y ago
  Ah yes, our "free market" health care system.
  - russell 16y ago
    Rather our oligarchical market system, where regulation is for the benefit of the regulated not the consumer. Bring back Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party.
jcl 16y ago
When you say 60% is not categorized, are you referring to the green slice in his chart? That's the amount he thinks the U.S. should be spending given its wealth and what other countries spend. He is intentionally only categorizing the parts that he thinks exceed other countries' expenditures. (See the last paragraph of the conclusion.)
- russell 16y ago
  Thank you for pointing that out. tltrbc (to long to read between compiles. And why too long? Coding in a Java framework.) Which goes back to my original question: What are these "extra expenses".
  - crpatino 16y ago
    Those expenses are not "extra" at all. Every category shown in the graph is not the total expense, it is just the expense above international standards. By example, lets say the total drugs expense in the US is $100B (it is probably not, i am too lazy to go fetch the actual number in the article). The red slide in the graph labeled "Drugs" is not those $100B, but only the $39B of above standard drug expense. So, in this example, there is some % in the green area of the graph that corresponds to the remaining $61B of drug expense that is expected according to the size and wealth of the US population. This has been intentionally left uncategorized in order to suggest that you cannot cut those without compromising the ability of the health care system to provide the levels of service needed by the population.
kscaldef 16y ago
That 60% is the "expected" costs. The categorization is just for the "extra" costs.

by russell 16y ago

ahi 16y ago

I think capital expenditures is the start of why costs are so high. It is difficult to find a hospital these days that isn't currently renovating or expanding. Hospitals can spend however much they want because they have no pressure on their prices. The insurers don't care how much they are paying so long as it's comparable to other insurers. They can just pass along the increases to employers/individuals who are required to buy. The only pressure healthcare providers have comes from Medicare and Medicaid and whatever they lose there they can just shift to the private insurers.

rbranson 16y ago
Ah yes, our "free market" health care system.
- russell 16y ago
  Rather our oligarchical market system, where regulation is for the benefit of the regulated not the consumer. Bring back Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party.

jcl 16y ago

When you say 60% is not categorized, are you referring to the green slice in his chart? That's the amount he thinks the U.S. should be spending given its wealth and what other countries spend. He is intentionally only categorizing the parts that he thinks exceed other countries' expenditures. (See the last paragraph of the conclusion.)

russell 16y ago
Thank you for pointing that out. tltrbc (to long to read between compiles. And why too long? Coding in a Java framework.) Which goes back to my original question: What are these "extra expenses".
- crpatino 16y ago
  Those expenses are not "extra" at all. Every category shown in the graph is not the total expense, it is just the expense above international standards. By example, lets say the total drugs expense in the US is $100B (it is probably not, i am too lazy to go fetch the actual number in the article). The red slide in the graph labeled "Drugs" is not those $100B, but only the $39B of above standard drug expense. So, in this example, there is some % in the green area of the graph that corresponds to the remaining $61B of drug expense that is expected according to the size and wealth of the US population. This has been intentionally left uncategorized in order to suggest that you cannot cut those without compromising the ability of the health care system to provide the levels of service needed by the population.

kscaldef 16y ago

That 60% is the "expected" costs. The categorization is just for the "extra" costs.