3 ms·

I know a medical provider who works for a small family medicine practice recently purchased by a large hospital group in our area. They're being told, "You guy

I know a medical provider who works for a small family medicine practice recently purchased by a large hospital group in our area. They're being told, "You guys need to be sending more people to our hospitals." So for these organizations, patients who are sick and suffering are seen as a product. A day of reckoning is coming for these organizations because the sick and suffering are getting fed up with being treated like a product.

soup10 7y ago
Not holding my breath on that one. The current health care system is institutionalized and is going resist reform every step of the way.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  I get the sense that "reckoning" in this case will be a little more "exciting" than reform.
aaavl2821 7y ago
Large hospitals systems have been forming regional monopolies for the last few decades. First they would buy other hospitals to increase negotiating leverage with insurers, then they started buying outpatient clinics to control patient flow. They can also increase the amount they charge at outpatient clinics once the larger hospital system buys them. Hospital spend represents 30% of US healthcare spend, and physician spend represents 20%. Physician employment by hospitals is at an all-time high. Busting local healthcare monopolies would do a ton to lower healthcare costs Unfortunately that is difficult. The hospital lobby spends about as much as the pharma lobby. But the hospital industry has much more "soft" political power. Hospitals are one of the biggest employers in almost every county. So for a politician to fight hospitals would mean fighting their largest employers. Hopefully more people become aware of this behavior by hospitals. You dont read much about it in the media. I'd imagine this has is because no one is incentivized to call out this behavior by hospitals
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  Healthcare stocks comprise a not insignificant part of many Americans' 401k portfolios, the downstream economic effects of dismantling healthcare would extend way beyond the hospital/pharma industry.
  - bad-joke 7y ago
    That 401k isn't going to be very useful if you can't afford healthcare.
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      And even less useful if you're bankrupted by it.
  - DonnyV 7y ago
    Less than half of the population have stocks of any kind, so this is not an issue. For the ones that do, re-balance.
  - shantly 7y ago
    Hospitals & hospice are the ones who're gonna suck up all that sweet 401k money eventually anyway, in most cases. Inheritance is dead for the middle class—the elderly are, in the best case, sustained by their retirement accounts until they get sick in the last 5-10 years of their life and the healthcare industry siphons off all their money. So yeah, go ahead and hit my retirement account for 20% in exchange for fixing healthcare—properly, like a real friggin' modern country I mean. Seems like a bargain.
- jcranberry 7y ago
  Are you sure that we should be going after hospitals rather than the insurance companies? I've been told by a doctor friend of mine that the price of treatment in hospitals are often affected by how much insurers are willing to pay. They bill an insurance company X, the insurance company only a fraction of that and the hospitals just have to deal with it. So suppose they get more leverage and they increase how much they charge--is that an increase in how much insurance companies pay or how much patients pay? Or both? And how does this compare to the actual costs of treatments before and after such an acquisition?
killjoywashere 7y ago
> "You guys need to be sending more people to our hospitals." This is true even in a socialized system like the military or VA, where the folks in leadership positions are seen in their own system. And that saves money, in no small part by reducing the amount of testing, improving continuity of documentation, etc. That savings doesn't just pad some executive's bank account. It makes it easier to give the nurses a raise, or keep a few more on staff through a recession. Makes it easier to buy that new 3 Tesla MRI for better resolution imaging, etc.

soup10 7y ago

Not holding my breath on that one. The current health care system is institutionalized and is going resist reform every step of the way.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
I get the sense that "reckoning" in this case will be a little more "exciting" than reform.

aaavl2821 7y ago

Large hospitals systems have been forming regional monopolies for the last few decades. First they would buy other hospitals to increase negotiating leverage with insurers, then they started buying outpatient clinics to control patient flow. They can also increase the amount they charge at outpatient clinics once the larger hospital system buys them. Hospital spend represents 30% of US healthcare spend, and physician spend represents 20%. Physician employment by hospitals is at an all-time high. Busting local healthcare monopolies would do a ton to lower healthcare costs Unfortunately that is difficult. The hospital lobby spends about as much as the pharma lobby. But the hospital industry has much more "soft" political power. Hospitals are one of the biggest employers in almost every county. So for a politician to fight hospitals would mean fighting their largest employers. Hopefully more people become aware of this behavior by hospitals. You dont read much about it in the media. I'd imagine this has is because no one is incentivized to call out this behavior by hospitals

creaghpatr 7y ago
Healthcare stocks comprise a not insignificant part of many Americans' 401k portfolios, the downstream economic effects of dismantling healthcare would extend way beyond the hospital/pharma industry.
- bad-joke 7y ago
  That 401k isn't going to be very useful if you can't afford healthcare.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    And even less useful if you're bankrupted by it.
- DonnyV 7y ago
  Less than half of the population have stocks of any kind, so this is not an issue. For the ones that do, re-balance.
- shantly 7y ago
  Hospitals & hospice are the ones who're gonna suck up all that sweet 401k money eventually anyway, in most cases. Inheritance is dead for the middle class—the elderly are, in the best case, sustained by their retirement accounts until they get sick in the last 5-10 years of their life and the healthcare industry siphons off all their money. So yeah, go ahead and hit my retirement account for 20% in exchange for fixing healthcare—properly, like a real friggin' modern country I mean. Seems like a bargain.
jcranberry 7y ago
Are you sure that we should be going after hospitals rather than the insurance companies? I've been told by a doctor friend of mine that the price of treatment in hospitals are often affected by how much insurers are willing to pay. They bill an insurance company X, the insurance company only a fraction of that and the hospitals just have to deal with it. So suppose they get more leverage and they increase how much they charge--is that an increase in how much insurance companies pay or how much patients pay? Or both? And how does this compare to the actual costs of treatments before and after such an acquisition?

killjoywashere 7y ago

> "You guys need to be sending more people to our hospitals." This is true even in a socialized system like the military or VA, where the folks in leadership positions are seen in their own system. And that saves money, in no small part by reducing the amount of testing, improving continuity of documentation, etc. That savings doesn't just pad some executive's bank account. It makes it easier to give the nurses a raise, or keep a few more on staff through a recession. Makes it easier to buy that new 3 Tesla MRI for better resolution imaging, etc.