4 ms·
I'm not sure that'd be workable. Define a discounted rate. What if the suppliers simply don't chase the insurers for remaining balance above the level of the "d
by rlpb 7y ago
I'm not sure that'd be workable. Define a discounted rate. What if the suppliers simply don't chase the insurers for remaining balance above the level of the "discount"? What about common practices (not sure about the US medical industry specifically) such as discounts for early payment? It seems to be that there would be too many workarounds.
I do like the idea though.
How about taxing suppliers on the published rate, rather than what they actually get paid? That might stop them being quite as egregious. If they charge an uninsured person more for an equivalent procedure, their tax bill will suddenly go up.
- Glyptodon 7y agoJust being as simple as "suppliers must offer the same terms to all parties" might be sufficient, though I suppose the loophole is just making the terms insanely complicated in that case.
- jfnixon 7y agoHow about "must charge only published prices?"
- rlpb 7y agoWhat they charge isn't what they eventually agree to settle though. Insurers still get _charged_ the full amount, AIUI, but have a negotiated settlement rate. Eg. "we will only pay 20% of your bill and you will consider the matter settled".
- amluto 7y agoI think insurance should be turned around and should reimburse the patient, not the provider. Specifically, if I go to a hospital, I should get a bill from the hospital that does not depend on my insurance status. My insurance can pay some or all of it pursuant to the terms of the insurance. Whatever they don’t pay is my liability. If the insurer and hospital cooperate, the insurer can pay their share before my bill is due, and that’s all. On top of this, medical providers must disclose the full cost structure of any non-emergency service up front and get my initials, just like auto mechanics. Emergency services should be strongly regulated. The goal here is to have price transparency where it matters: with the patient, and to prevent insurance from corrupting the market. Abusive medical consolidation like we have in the Bay Area won’t happen, since there would be no benefit for providers to merge to improve their insurance contracts. As evidence that this could work, look at dentistry. Every dental provider I have ever encountered can tell you, in advance, exactly what they will charge. The prices are not insane the way non-dental medical prices are. And there are no surprise bills in dentistry.
- tropo 7y agoYou can actually do this. Get your treatment, receive your bill (which you must pay), and then ask your insurance company to pay you. Eventually you get a check in the mail from your insurance provider. I've done it for a few childbirths with midwives and I've done it many times for dentists. I think this used to be standard, and may relate to that whole annoyance about you being responsible for whatever charges aren't covered. When you give your insurance info to the medical provider, you're not changing who ultimately pays. The medical provider is simply offering two things: they will handle the paperwork and they will loan you the cost of the treatment until the insurance claim is processed.
- b_tterc_p 7y agoIs this downvoted because it’s generally false?
- amluto 7y agoIt’s certainly not the case that telling your doctor about your insurance only changes who pays. It radically changes the price, and not always downward.
- amluto 7y ago> I've done it for a few childbirths with midwives and I've done it many times for dentists. Neither of which is the kind of medicine that is so badly corrupted by insurance. Try doing it for a routine non-elective procedure at almost any major hospital as you’ll have a rather different experience.