4 ms·

Hospitals are protected businesses in the U.S. To build one you need a "certificate of need" in most jurisdictions in the United States. I.e., they are govern

Hospitals are protected businesses in the U.S. To build one you need a "certificate of need" in most jurisdictions in the United States. I.e., they are government-granted monopolies. They behave like government-protected monopolists do: they rent-seek. If you want to see affordable hospital care you have to see the protection removed and competition allowed and encouraged. This is happening to some degree already. Nowadays we have unprotected, standalone ERs, urgent care clinics, and specialist clinics. But it's not really enough, not yet.

Spooky23 7y ago
> Nowadays we have unprotected, standalone ERs, urgent care clinics, and specialist clinics. In your example the tail wags the dog. Hospitals are mostly obsolete. You have outpatient surgery in strip malls because hospital beds are capped and reduced, and Medicare began refusing to pay for bad outcomes, which are more common in hospitals. The government-allowed monopolies are the sprawling health networks the turn medicine into a sales funnel. They are labelled with hospital branding, but the monopolist actions are all about doctors. For example, in my region, 90% of renal doctors work for a single practice. Urgent care is a whole other animal -- that's all about the reducing standards and addressing supply shortages of primary care doctors caused by restricted supply (there are caps) and higher salaries in specialities.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  > The government-allowed monopolies are the sprawling health networks the turn medicine into a sales funnel. Crazy levels of regulation is one of the most sure-fire ways to make monopolies or oligopolies inevitable by creating huge economies of scale. The red tape burden is much easier for larger players than smaller ones. They can keep a staff of dedicated pencil-pushers that know the industry, its regulation, and how to deal with the bureaucrats. With less regulation and no more "certificate of need" nonsense, it would be not only easier for competitors to start but just as importantly easier and more economical for them to remain independent. The government has created the environment in which monopolists thrive and the free market is stifled; people then complain and turn to the government to fix it? We're in the insurance mess to start with because of wage & price controls. Even the EU makes it easier to try new drugs, at least from a regulatory standpoint. The market is smarter than any pencil-pusher or congressman; let it do its job. Corrupting it is what got us here in the first place.
  - knightofmars 7y ago
    This ignores the fact that markets fail under certain circumstances. Removing regulation would not remove the fact that a significant portion of healthcare is a natural monopoly[1] due to the fact that a significant portion of the population cannot "shop around" when incurring medical costs and the starting costs to enter the healthcare market as a provider are high: provide adequate facilities, hiring staff, purchase of equipment [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
    - knightofmars 7y ago
      Nice, a down-vote without addressing the content and the reference to support said content. But hey, what do actual economists know about markets and monopolies.
      - knightofmars 7y ago
        Haha, down-vote to that one too. Feel free to address the original criticism, I'm waiting to have an actual debate instead of an naive emotion fueled down-vote fest.
        knightofmars 7y ago
        Got it, you're admitting you were wrong through your actions. Thank you for that, it's refreshing to see people that are willing to accept a different viewpoint and adjust their own beliefs when new information is provided.
        Retric 7y ago
        I upvoted your first comment and downvoted the next 3. It’s not a question of what your saying, but how your saying it. Try actually reading though the guidelines and thinking about what makes a comment worth reading. Ex: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- tptacek 7y ago
  Depending on what you mean by "beds are capped and reduced", the opposite may be true: my understanding is that one of the major inefficiencies in US health care is that we have an unusually high vacancy rate in hospital beds. Addressing that problem is the central argument of Certificate Of Need laws.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    Everyone fights hospital closures, so it's really hard to do. It's sort of like how everyone hates Congress, but loves their congressman. Certificate of Need addresses growth. IIRC in New York, they closed something like 20 hospitals, with 10-12 in NYC. In my area (NY, but not NYC), there has lately there have been a bunch of hospital "mergers", where the lesser hospital gets converted into a sort of outpatient surgery site with urgent care, or an ER without longer term care.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      I'm not even saying that CON laws are good; I have no idea. I'm just saying that the premise behind them appears to be accurate, and the argument that they are nationally responsible for lack of available hospital beds seems flawed (there are regions where there aren't enough vacant beds, but that doesn't seem to correspond to CON laws, and nationally the statistic is in the other direction).
      - cryptonector 7y ago
        > just saying that the premise behind them appears to be accurate There's only one way to find out. Indeed, we're finding out as we speak, because all those new ERs and urgent care clinics and specialist clinics and birthing centers, they did not need CONs, so they got built. And they got built by people who risked capital to do it. And it seems to be working out. I know I'm not going to any hospital's ER if something happens to me, and neither is anyone in my family -- we know the score on pricing and billing. So the free market has found a way around the protectionist regulation of hospital construction. Is that even a surprise to anyone?
texasbigdata 7y ago
With first hand knowledge this is correct but much more technically complicated at the ground level than you would ever believe.

Spooky23 7y ago

> Nowadays we have unprotected, standalone ERs, urgent care clinics, and specialist clinics. In your example the tail wags the dog. Hospitals are mostly obsolete. You have outpatient surgery in strip malls because hospital beds are capped and reduced, and Medicare began refusing to pay for bad outcomes, which are more common in hospitals. The government-allowed monopolies are the sprawling health networks the turn medicine into a sales funnel. They are labelled with hospital branding, but the monopolist actions are all about doctors. For example, in my region, 90% of renal doctors work for a single practice. Urgent care is a whole other animal -- that's all about the reducing standards and addressing supply shortages of primary care doctors caused by restricted supply (there are caps) and higher salaries in specialities.

big_chungus 7y ago
> The government-allowed monopolies are the sprawling health networks the turn medicine into a sales funnel. Crazy levels of regulation is one of the most sure-fire ways to make monopolies or oligopolies inevitable by creating huge economies of scale. The red tape burden is much easier for larger players than smaller ones. They can keep a staff of dedicated pencil-pushers that know the industry, its regulation, and how to deal with the bureaucrats. With less regulation and no more "certificate of need" nonsense, it would be not only easier for competitors to start but just as importantly easier and more economical for them to remain independent. The government has created the environment in which monopolists thrive and the free market is stifled; people then complain and turn to the government to fix it? We're in the insurance mess to start with because of wage & price controls. Even the EU makes it easier to try new drugs, at least from a regulatory standpoint. The market is smarter than any pencil-pusher or congressman; let it do its job. Corrupting it is what got us here in the first place.
- knightofmars 7y ago
  This ignores the fact that markets fail under certain circumstances. Removing regulation would not remove the fact that a significant portion of healthcare is a natural monopoly[1] due to the fact that a significant portion of the population cannot "shop around" when incurring medical costs and the starting costs to enter the healthcare market as a provider are high: provide adequate facilities, hiring staff, purchase of equipment [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
  - knightofmars 7y ago
    Nice, a down-vote without addressing the content and the reference to support said content. But hey, what do actual economists know about markets and monopolies.
    - knightofmars 7y ago
      Haha, down-vote to that one too. Feel free to address the original criticism, I'm waiting to have an actual debate instead of an naive emotion fueled down-vote fest.
      - knightofmars 7y ago
        Got it, you're admitting you were wrong through your actions. Thank you for that, it's refreshing to see people that are willing to accept a different viewpoint and adjust their own beliefs when new information is provided.
        Retric 7y ago
        I upvoted your first comment and downvoted the next 3. It’s not a question of what your saying, but how your saying it. Try actually reading though the guidelines and thinking about what makes a comment worth reading. Ex: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
tptacek 7y ago
Depending on what you mean by "beds are capped and reduced", the opposite may be true: my understanding is that one of the major inefficiencies in US health care is that we have an unusually high vacancy rate in hospital beds. Addressing that problem is the central argument of Certificate Of Need laws.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  Everyone fights hospital closures, so it's really hard to do. It's sort of like how everyone hates Congress, but loves their congressman. Certificate of Need addresses growth. IIRC in New York, they closed something like 20 hospitals, with 10-12 in NYC. In my area (NY, but not NYC), there has lately there have been a bunch of hospital "mergers", where the lesser hospital gets converted into a sort of outpatient surgery site with urgent care, or an ER without longer term care.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I'm not even saying that CON laws are good; I have no idea. I'm just saying that the premise behind them appears to be accurate, and the argument that they are nationally responsible for lack of available hospital beds seems flawed (there are regions where there aren't enough vacant beds, but that doesn't seem to correspond to CON laws, and nationally the statistic is in the other direction).
    - cryptonector 7y ago
      > just saying that the premise behind them appears to be accurate There's only one way to find out. Indeed, we're finding out as we speak, because all those new ERs and urgent care clinics and specialist clinics and birthing centers, they did not need CONs, so they got built. And they got built by people who risked capital to do it. And it seems to be working out. I know I'm not going to any hospital's ER if something happens to me, and neither is anyone in my family -- we know the score on pricing and billing. So the free market has found a way around the protectionist regulation of hospital construction. Is that even a surprise to anyone?

texasbigdata 7y ago

With first hand knowledge this is correct but much more technically complicated at the ground level than you would ever believe.