5 ms·

Wouldn't that be even more pressure on the pricing system, though? If statistics about refused services were kept, we could see where the various providers are

Wouldn't that be even more pressure on the pricing system, though? If statistics about refused services were kept, we could see where the various providers are pricing in-demand services out of reach of those who need them. Or conversely, what services were advised above and beyond actual need. We could see pressure on providers to bring costs in line with the benefits of each code/procedure, and the ripple effects could help reduce the premium->insurer->provider cost overages for everyone. Mind you, I still believe single payer will be the eventual end game, but this could be a solid step in the right direction.

cogman10 6y ago
> Wouldn't that be even more pressure on the pricing system, though? Why would it? They can literally just raise the price and those that have insurance are going to get it which ultimately covers the loss in those that refuse service due to price. That ultimately is reflected to the customer in the form of higher premiums which they pay regardless of whether on not they get EKGs. Further, with less people getting services it really is as simple as cutting nursing, doctor, and lab staff because there isn't as much demand. It may make a difference if the market was completely unregulated and insurance didn't exist at all. In that case, some guy could do EKGs out of his van at a much lower cost. However, that's not the market we have. Doctors command high salaries and we've regulated that only those with medical licenses can practice medicine. Medicine is not a free market and it's a bad idea to ever make it one. There are already major issues with unlicensed quacks selling placebos.