3 ms·
The article actually provides data that belies this line of argument. 50% of healthcare users account for 3% of the cost. Essentially all that preventative care
by entee 7y ago
The article actually provides data that belies this line of argument. 50% of healthcare users account for 3% of the cost. Essentially all that preventative care or routine care is actually quite cheap on a systems level. It's not actually the driver for medical costs.
Chronically sick patients, older patients and patients with major events drive the costs. In this case an insurance model of some sort is appropriate. However, I'm increasingly unconvinced that private insurers without extremely tight regulation are the way to go. I'd choose something like Switzerland or Germany where you have a heavily regulated insurance market with price controls. They get better outcomes than we do at much better prices.
Granted the docs will take cash and bill you for less, but I'm not sure that's all that it seems on the surface. If you're insured your copay may end up being less than the cost you'd pay straight up, and the negotiated price between the insurer and provider may be lower still than what you'd see on a bill. You may still be ahead, but it's complicated.
- menckenjr 7y agoDid you mean "3% of healthcare users account for 50% of the cost"?
- kevinventullo 7y agoI think they meant what they wrote, but it might have landed better as "50% of healthcare users account for 97% of the cost". Basically, the healthier/younger half of the population costs almost nothing.
- entee 7y agoNo if you look at the chart from the NIHCM about halfway down the article, you see that 3% of total costs cover the first 50% of people. The top 5% of people account for about 50% of spending and the top 10% account for 2/3 so conveniently the statement you made is actually pretty accurate too :)