3 ms·

The problem is two-sided. Yes the costs paid by the hospital, and the cost of the techniques and tools used by the hospital are all too high, because the system

by zaroth 8y ago

The problem is two-sided. Yes the costs paid by the hospital, and the cost of the techniques and tools used by the hospital are all too high, because the system does not properly incentivize finding lower cost solutions that may be equally effective and safe. In this case the problem is exacerbated by the way that privately insured patients are being exploited to subsidize publicly insured patients; “A hospital spokesperson initially told Vox that the hospital’s focus is on serving those with public health coverage, even if that means offsetting those costs with high bills for the privately insured.” It should be illegal to charge two different people different prices for the same procedure at the same hospital. At a more granular level, it should be illegal to price discriminate on anything that can be itemized. The middle and upper class patients are exploited to pay for publically insured patients who get service below cost which the hospital can’t legally turn away.

exabrial 8y ago
> It should be illegal to charge two different people different prices for the same procedure at the same hospital I think you're close to a solution with minimal regulatory intervention (Which so far has only made things even more expensive: ACA for example). I'm curious how this would be reconciled with insurer networks though. A cost savings to insurers IS to have networks and discounts.
- larkost 8y ago
  Two comments: 1. The ACA has by all accounts kept the growth of healthcare costs in check. Yes they have gone up, but at not nearly the rate they were going up before it, let alone the increased rate that most expected. If you start getting into the details this makes a lot of sense, but those details often get lost in the conversation about mandatory coverage (and the subsidies to make that possible on the low end). 2. This sort of cost savings to the insurers is more moving the costs to other people, thus negating most of the cost savings incentives.

by zaroth 8y ago

exabrial 8y ago

> It should be illegal to charge two different people different prices for the same procedure at the same hospital I think you're close to a solution with minimal regulatory intervention (Which so far has only made things even more expensive: ACA for example). I'm curious how this would be reconciled with insurer networks though. A cost savings to insurers IS to have networks and discounts.

larkost 8y ago
Two comments: 1. The ACA has by all accounts kept the growth of healthcare costs in check. Yes they have gone up, but at not nearly the rate they were going up before it, let alone the increased rate that most expected. If you start getting into the details this makes a lot of sense, but those details often get lost in the conversation about mandatory coverage (and the subsidies to make that possible on the low end). 2. This sort of cost savings to the insurers is more moving the costs to other people, thus negating most of the cost savings incentives.