4 ms·

This assumes that the health insurance plans are an effective check on cost, that there is any sort of shoppable market for medical services, and that the patie

by dv_dt 7y ago

This assumes that the health insurance plans are an effective check on cost, that there is any sort of shoppable market for medical services, and that the patient has the knowledge to shop with at the level of sophistication of medical professionals. None of that happens in the current healthcare market where we pay over double all other modern nations, nor does it happen in the many other nations that effectively control medical costs via setting a schedule of prices for drugs and medical procedures.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> This assumes that the health insurance plans are an effective check on cost, that there is any sort of shoppable market for medical services, and that the patient has the knowledge to shop with at the level of sophistication of medical professionals. The check on cost in this case would be the patient, because outside of any other reason to choose one provider over the other, they would choose the least expensive one and save money. Which gives every provider the incentive to either be the least expensive one or provide tangibly more benefit to justify a higher price. Yes, for it to work it would have to be combined with some functioning price transparency, but so let's do that then. And the last isn't actually required. If patients can discern no meaningful difference between providers then they'll just choose the least expensive one, leading to price competition as intended. Though you can imagine that repeat patients will still have good knowledge of how big the patient rooms are, how soft the beds are, how much time they find themselves spending in the waiting room, how far the office is from their house, etc. > None of that happens in the current healthcare market where we pay over double all other modern nations, nor does it happen in the many other nations that effectively control medical costs via setting a schedule of prices for drugs and medical procedures. Nobody thinks the current US healthcare market is cost efficient. The existing regulatory environment is bad and promotes a lack of competition. But why is the only solution price controls, instead of fixing the bad rules that impair competition?

by dv_dt 7y ago

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> This assumes that the health insurance plans are an effective check on cost, that there is any sort of shoppable market for medical services, and that the patient has the knowledge to shop with at the level of sophistication of medical professionals. The check on cost in this case would be the patient, because outside of any other reason to choose one provider over the other, they would choose the least expensive one and save money. Which gives every provider the incentive to either be the least expensive one or provide tangibly more benefit to justify a higher price. Yes, for it to work it would have to be combined with some functioning price transparency, but so let's do that then. And the last isn't actually required. If patients can discern no meaningful difference between providers then they'll just choose the least expensive one, leading to price competition as intended. Though you can imagine that repeat patients will still have good knowledge of how big the patient rooms are, how soft the beds are, how much time they find themselves spending in the waiting room, how far the office is from their house, etc. > None of that happens in the current healthcare market where we pay over double all other modern nations, nor does it happen in the many other nations that effectively control medical costs via setting a schedule of prices for drugs and medical procedures. Nobody thinks the current US healthcare market is cost efficient. The existing regulatory environment is bad and promotes a lack of competition. But why is the only solution price controls, instead of fixing the bad rules that impair competition?