4 ms·

>Most health visits, and the vast majority of all preventative care, does not fall into that category. The kinds of easy issues you're talking about don't need

>Most health visits, and the vast majority of all preventative care, does not fall into that category. The kinds of easy issues you're talking about don't need to happen in a hospital. You can already go to an outpatient imaging clinic for an x-ray, a dermatologist's office to have a mole removed, or an urgent care to suture a laceration. If you need emergent care or you want an elective procedure that requires a hospital stay, you're into the realm of custom services with variable pricing. >This is the exact same argument that hospitals used to use against itemized pricing, and yet it turns out that requiring hospitals to give itemized bills on request has pretty solidly been a good thing for consumers. Has it? Has it driven down prices? Has the demonstrated value been worth the cost? Or has it just pushed hospitals into creating longer bills with more creative items and charges. Creative line items like $500 for aspirin perhaps?

danShumway 5y ago
> The kinds of easy issues you're talking about don't need to happen in a hospital. You can already go to an outpatient imaging clinic for an x-ray, a dermatologist's office to have a mole removed, or an urgent care to suture a laceration. Even better: clearly the market has proven that it's possible to offer these services with transparent pricing. Why can't hospitals keep pace? This also raises the question why preventative care often falls into the same category. Lawyers have a predictable billable rate, personal physicians and doctors often don't. Most scheduled hospital procedures require multiple consultations and planning before the procedures take place. Most of that stuff is not transparently priced. There's no reason why a hospital shouldn't be able to figure out the cost of minor anesthesia before a scheduled minor surgery. That's not a surprising part of the procedure, that should be something that's fully negotiated with insurance and disclosed to the patient beforehand so they can decide. > Has the demonstrated value been worth the cost? Yes, absolutely, you can find tons of stories online about people negotiating smaller bills because itemized bills turn out to include services that they never requested (and in some cases services that were never even actually performed). If you talk to experts about managing personal health costs, pretty much all of them will tell you to always request an itemized bill after you visit a hospital or doctors office. It's also absolutely worthwhile because you're seeing creative line items like $500 for aspirin that prove that the costs of the services aren't being based on market rates. That's really important information because it opens the door to other questions like "why are these prices what they are", and "can you tell me in advance before you give me a $500 aspirin?" I mean... you're saying this is the norm in complex industries, it absolutely is not. Complex industries are complex because they don't know up front what they'll be billing you for. That's not even remotely the same thing as "we think your stay should cost $5000 for reasons we can't disclose, so I guess we'll jack up the aspirin cost after the fact to try and prevent anyone from questioning us." It is extremely worthwhile to put hospitals in a position where they have to answer consumers why an in-patient aspirin is priced so much higher than the market rate for the drug. I don't know if this is your intention, but what you're implying when you say that the itemized bills aren't accurate is that hospital pricing isn't based on any kind of competitive or visible market rate, or even anything objective at all. Which is a pretty bold claim. Other industries with high-variability pricing exist, but they're not just making up numbers completely out of thin air after the fact and then lying about line items to try and justify that cost. Hopefully hospitals aren't doing that either. But if they're not, if they are actually basing their prices off of the combined prices of the services they provided... then we gotta ask about that $500 aspirin, because that's a weird price.
- learc83 5y ago
  >Even better: clearly the market has proven that it's possible to offer these services with transparent pricing. Why can't hospitals keep pace? 1. You shouldn't be admitted to a hospital for those minor clear-cut procedures. 2. Hospitals receive public funds to offset the costs of some services. 3. Hospitals are required to provide certain services regardless of the customer's ability to pay. >Lawyers have a predictable billable rate, personal physicians and doctors often don't. Laywers will tell you their billable rate, and can give you a semi accurate estimate for simple services. For more complex services their estimates have enormous error bars. >There's no reason why a hospital shouldn't be able to figure out the cost of minor anesthesia before a scheduled minor surgery. That's not a surprising part of the procedure, that should be something that's fully negotiated with insurance and disclosed to the patient beforehand so they can decide. If you're talking about local anesthesia sure, but in that case you're unlikely to actually need to be admitted to a hospital unless it's an emergent condition. If you're talking about general anesthesia then there's a reason that an anesthesiologist or a CRNA with many years of training is required to be present. > Yes, absolutely, you can find tons of stories online about people negotiating smaller bills because itemized bills turn out to include services that they never requested (and in some cases services that were never even actually performed). Yes but do you have actual data that the benefits are worth the cost? Has it actually driven down health prices in the US overall? Was the additional complexity actually worth it? >It's also absolutely worthwhile because you're seeing creative line items like $500 for aspirin that prove that the costs of the services aren't being based on market rates. I think you're not understanding the point of this. You're not going to actually save money by declining to take an aspirin. Of course hospital services aren't based on market rates. Hospitals are required by law to offer certain services regardless of the ability of patients to pay, most patients are insulated from the actual costs through insurance, many patients have zero out of pocket costs, complex procedures are impossible to accurately estimate, and the free market has an inherent problem with extremely price inelastic services. It's not a free market, and unless we are willing to make drastic changes to society, it never will be. Pricing transparency for hospital commodities is such an insignificant part of health care costs that it's a gigantic waste of everyone's time.
  - 5y ago

danShumway 5y ago

> The kinds of easy issues you're talking about don't need to happen in a hospital. You can already go to an outpatient imaging clinic for an x-ray, a dermatologist's office to have a mole removed, or an urgent care to suture a laceration. Even better: clearly the market has proven that it's possible to offer these services with transparent pricing. Why can't hospitals keep pace? This also raises the question why preventative care often falls into the same category. Lawyers have a predictable billable rate, personal physicians and doctors often don't. Most scheduled hospital procedures require multiple consultations and planning before the procedures take place. Most of that stuff is not transparently priced. There's no reason why a hospital shouldn't be able to figure out the cost of minor anesthesia before a scheduled minor surgery. That's not a surprising part of the procedure, that should be something that's fully negotiated with insurance and disclosed to the patient beforehand so they can decide. > Has the demonstrated value been worth the cost? Yes, absolutely, you can find tons of stories online about people negotiating smaller bills because itemized bills turn out to include services that they never requested (and in some cases services that were never even actually performed). If you talk to experts about managing personal health costs, pretty much all of them will tell you to always request an itemized bill after you visit a hospital or doctors office. It's also absolutely worthwhile because you're seeing creative line items like $500 for aspirin that prove that the costs of the services aren't being based on market rates. That's really important information because it opens the door to other questions like "why are these prices what they are", and "can you tell me in advance before you give me a $500 aspirin?" I mean... you're saying this is the norm in complex industries, it absolutely is not. Complex industries are complex because they don't know up front what they'll be billing you for. That's not even remotely the same thing as "we think your stay should cost $5000 for reasons we can't disclose, so I guess we'll jack up the aspirin cost after the fact to try and prevent anyone from questioning us." It is extremely worthwhile to put hospitals in a position where they have to answer consumers why an in-patient aspirin is priced so much higher than the market rate for the drug. I don't know if this is your intention, but what you're implying when you say that the itemized bills aren't accurate is that hospital pricing isn't based on any kind of competitive or visible market rate, or even anything objective at all. Which is a pretty bold claim. Other industries with high-variability pricing exist, but they're not just making up numbers completely out of thin air after the fact and then lying about line items to try and justify that cost. Hopefully hospitals aren't doing that either. But if they're not, if they are actually basing their prices off of the combined prices of the services they provided... then we gotta ask about that $500 aspirin, because that's a weird price.

learc83 5y ago
>Even better: clearly the market has proven that it's possible to offer these services with transparent pricing. Why can't hospitals keep pace? 1. You shouldn't be admitted to a hospital for those minor clear-cut procedures. 2. Hospitals receive public funds to offset the costs of some services. 3. Hospitals are required to provide certain services regardless of the customer's ability to pay. >Lawyers have a predictable billable rate, personal physicians and doctors often don't. Laywers will tell you their billable rate, and can give you a semi accurate estimate for simple services. For more complex services their estimates have enormous error bars. >There's no reason why a hospital shouldn't be able to figure out the cost of minor anesthesia before a scheduled minor surgery. That's not a surprising part of the procedure, that should be something that's fully negotiated with insurance and disclosed to the patient beforehand so they can decide. If you're talking about local anesthesia sure, but in that case you're unlikely to actually need to be admitted to a hospital unless it's an emergent condition. If you're talking about general anesthesia then there's a reason that an anesthesiologist or a CRNA with many years of training is required to be present. > Yes, absolutely, you can find tons of stories online about people negotiating smaller bills because itemized bills turn out to include services that they never requested (and in some cases services that were never even actually performed). Yes but do you have actual data that the benefits are worth the cost? Has it actually driven down health prices in the US overall? Was the additional complexity actually worth it? >It's also absolutely worthwhile because you're seeing creative line items like $500 for aspirin that prove that the costs of the services aren't being based on market rates. I think you're not understanding the point of this. You're not going to actually save money by declining to take an aspirin. Of course hospital services aren't based on market rates. Hospitals are required by law to offer certain services regardless of the ability of patients to pay, most patients are insulated from the actual costs through insurance, many patients have zero out of pocket costs, complex procedures are impossible to accurately estimate, and the free market has an inherent problem with extremely price inelastic services. It's not a free market, and unless we are willing to make drastic changes to society, it never will be. Pricing transparency for hospital commodities is such an insignificant part of health care costs that it's a gigantic waste of everyone's time.
- 5y ago