EDIT: I know the U.S. healthcare system isn’t a totally free market. We’ve designed a system that isn’t government run but has mandates like ERs having to see patients. Half the country labels anything that isn’t government run as free market and anything that is government run as communism. These are proxy words.
If you want a healthcare system that isn’t government run but that has a semblance of “free market” in it but that also “treats” most people this is what you get. Well, it’s what our system has morphed into.
Tons of heavy regulation everywhere limiting supplies of doctors, nurses, ability for folks to see pricing info, for pricing info to matter etc. Consumer of the service often is not the one paying. So you can do crazy stuff like make an insurance co pay $10,000 per pill for something that overseas no one would ever pay that because they'd be paying themselves.
I've been in third world countries, cash pay places, no insurance, no govt stuff. You can call and ask how much something will cost, they tell you, you go, pay and done.
My bills in California have like 10 pages of notices and warnings on them for each charge. So it's a 5 page document per copay. Its crazy.
Makes it hard to discuss because people use the same phrase to mean completely opposite things.
The problem with US healthcare is not that it's private, it's that it's more expensive than it has any right to be.
A private system with a good framework of regulation would be good.
I certainly disagree with you that it being a market is the problem, but I think one can consider downsides to that pretty straightforwardly: the lack of price elasticity when you’re dying makes markets price poorly, discouraging people from healthcare is a societal bad, etc.
The idea that there should be a market but that it should not be free is something I just find really problematic since it’s just a steal-from-everyone-to-enrich-medical-barons thing.
If you don’t want to have the freeness argument then perhaps choosing other phrases will help. If you do want to have that argument, obviously you’ll find yourself discussing whether or not the market is free.
DMV is quite good in my state. The Postal Service does an outstanding job of delivering packages. NIST and the Park Service provide great benefits to the nation. The U.S. military is government run and it does a great job at destroying organized state power. Should we privatize all of these organizations? How about privatizing the court system? Do you really want to live on Ferenginar?
Plenty of agencies in numerous nations have proved this out, but folks continue to have onanistic John Galt fantasies instead.
There are many people in government trying to do a good job and many who aren't, just like private industry. I recently spent <15 mins at the DMV to get a vehicle title transferred and it was a very efficient process (granted I spent more time in the car as there aren't offices in every town).
---
Perhaps you should talk to your local representative about the DMV's funding. There was a recent post to HN about how the FDA only has 10 employees to do declassification of documents, of course they will be slow at doing that. I wonder how many employees/per capita works at your DMVs.
Strategic ambiguity around “freedom” “free market” etc is a useful tool to prevent change. It creates a self reinforcing mythology in peoples heads and enough confusion about reality that blaming the victims for being “unprepared” can exist in the broad/abstract while also still feeling empathy and dying “that’s bad” in individual cases.
The patients in these stories seem well-intentioned and well-prepared. They double check that their doctors are in-network. They triple-check what charges they should expect. But there's always a gotcha. There's always some hidden, between-the-lines reason hospitals come up with to charge you, and insurance won't cover. In one story, the surgeon invited an out-of-network surgical assistant into the surgery, without notice. In another [2], the labor and delivery department was classified as an ER, for a completely routine delivery.
When these charges are dismissed, it's always because NPR reached out for comment, and the hospital backs down, presumably because of the bad PR.
The unpredictably and seemingly arbitrary nature of medical charges makes me feel... queasy. And scared to seek medical help, which I know is what insurance companies want. Even with great insurance, which I'm lucky to have, it feels like there's nothing I can do to prevent medium-to-insane charges. The only way I can think of to try and combat medical billing is to retain a lawyer.
[1] https://www.npr.org/series/651784144/bill-of-the-month
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/07/22/8919096...
[3] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/10/27/1049138...
The problem with this system is they act like everything is fine after they drop their claim, but what needs to happen is people going to prison. This is large-scale white collar fraud and it should be getting much more media attention than some guys stealing shampoo at the Walgreens.
The people getting service often are not ones actually paying (insurance pays, medicaid, medi-Cal etc).
The whole billing thing can be pretty darn maddening for providers as well.
There is absolutely no public pricing.
One thing I couldn't stand. A bunch of policians want to talk about how much money various govt programs save. So they do things like lower of cost or contract (penalizes you if you deliver to much service for same price) or some % of your charge sheet (ie, 50%). If 90% of your patient load is going through these programs, you basically have to set your cash pay charge to 2x it's normal cost, so that all these players can then report "savings".
The reality is there should be a cash pay DISCOUNT, you pay 80% if you pay in cash. But all these programs will not pay more than cash pay even though the overhead of dealing with them is massive. Ie, probably should pay 110% of a reasonable rate.
Also, surely there's a hefty opportunity for someone to be providing a service to audit and reduce bills for x% of the reduction?
> Martand received almost no medical service. A nurse practitioner looked over the toddler, listened to his heart and stomach, and looked in his nose, mouth and ears, according to provider notes prepared by the hospital and shared with KHN by Bhatt.
> The nurse didn't change the dressing on the wound or order any testing.
> Emergency visits are usually classified for billing on a scale from 1 to 5. Level 1 is minor and routine; Level 5 requires complex care for life-threatening conditions. [...] Despite the lack of severity of Martand's wound and the absence of medical care, his visit was classified as Level 3, a moderate severity problem.
> In an email, Zoller Mueller said the charges were "appropriate" based on the "acuity of condition, discharge instructions, vital sign monitoring, traumatic wound care [and] numerous assessments."
> She added: "A patient does not have to receive additional treatment — procedure, labs, x-rays, etc. — to validate an ED [emergency department] level charge."
My wife got a 4k bill that had no information on it other than the amount due. I called the hospital and asked what the bill was for and they said they would send an itemized bill, they never did, but I did get a letter from collections and I called them and said that I dispute the charges. And I never heard anything about it again.
I had a family member get seriously ill and we racked up a ton of medical debt. There was no way in hell we could have paid it off and continued to live on one salary.
Filed for bankruptcy, and two years later started off with a clean slate. Honestly credit was back into the 700's, bought a new car and a new home two years later.
So where does the money go? Is it going to treat people who end up not paying? Is it going to buy expensive diagnostic equipment?
Where does it go? No one seems to know.
Making all of this predictable, transparent, and detangled is only step one. Hitting people -- actual humans -- with fraud charges is also a grand idea.
Hospitals deal with thousands of things. Their overhead and complexity are high. This leads to inefficiency which costs more.
I've read that the math around the costs map fairly well to the cost models around factories [1].
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Prescription-Disruptive-So...
I'm getting a bit tired of these anti-US healthcare posts day after day. Sure, there are some issues, but this is starting to feel like reformist propaganda. I, for one, am very happy with the current system and don't understand why anti-government activists want to hand the government the keys to run the healthcare system.
The ER visit ultimately cost $38.92, after:
1. He tried to negotiate the bill: "Dhaval Bhatt made numerous attempts to get the hospital to reduce the charges. He also appealed to UnitedHealthcare to review the charges."
2. The hospital refused: "His efforts failed....the hospital would not adjust the bill."
3. The hospital sent his bill to collections: "While Bhatt was trying to reach the patient advocate by phone, his bill was sent to Medicredit, a collection agency, which began sending him notices and calling him."
4. The hospital forgave the bill due to bad PR: "After KHN [Kaiser Health News] contacted SSM Health, Bhatt received a call from someone who worked on "patient financial experience" issues at the hospital. The hospital agreed to forgive the $820 facility fee."
> The system worked out exactly as it should have.
Could you clarify?
Because it mostly leads to more efficient healthcare systems. For example, the per-capita healthcare cost in the UK is less than half that of the US for broadly similar outcomes.
The data is very clear Americans pay the most for healthcare out of every other OECD nation and yet receive worse outcomes [2].
[1] https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.3049...
[2] https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2020/07/how-does-the-us-healthcare...
Just because it worked out "this once" doesn't mean it works out in general.
Simple fact of the matter is we pay nearly double per capita what most of Europe, Canada and Australia pays for healthcare, and we don't even have universal coverage. Add in the fact that a majority of bankruptcies are due to medical debt and it paints a pretty damning picture overall.
This system is fundamentally broken. Anyone defending it is either willfully ignorant or shielded from it's worst aspects.
$38.92 for a medical assistant spending 1 minute to take your temperature works out to $2335/hour.
The article is not arguing for government control. Rather that medical services should be subject to the same transparency as any other professional business and without collusion with each other and insurance providers.
2. Never use it because even though you have no idea what you're going to be charged, you know it is going to be outrageous, even though you have insurance to cover medical bills
What a racket...
1. Buy an inexpensive high deductible insurance plan to cover only emergency expenses.
1.1. Make sure that for your plan out-of-network expenses count toward your oopm.
(1.2. Cry because your employer's health plan doesn't work for this.)
1.3. Have enough cash liquid to cover your oopm.
2. Max out your HSA contributions.
3. Pay cash for everything.
Sans 1.2. this has been working reasonably well for me. You would be amazed at the discounts you get once you say you're paying cash. Medical expenses suddenly are downright reasonably priced.
tl;dr Surprise! Everything is cheaper when you have money. Oh America.
For example, to have a child's broken arm evaluated and casted in a Mexico capital city is less than $100, total. Annual cost of living for a family of four is $25k-30k/US.
Anecdotally I found this to be true with prescriptions. I didn't even ask for one but as soon as I told the pharmacist I was paying cash he said, "Oh, let me apply the coupon for you." and gave me a 20% discount. It was already a cheap generic but I wasn't going to complain.
For example, many procedures at a hospital lose the hospital money. They don't cover the cost. Other things cost more and make up the difference.
Another element is that most US hospitals are very inefficient in what they do. In the book The innovator's prescription you can read the technical details on how those inefficiencies happen.
I don't want hospitals to make a profit, or generate revenue. Every procedure should be losing money.
Even communist systems had budgets and financial rules.
1. Social programs can start regionally. There's a refrain you hear continually that if, say, California were to institute a socialized health insurance system it would immediately collapse because all the "takers" would move there (absent border control) to drain its resources. Yet that's how socialized health insurance developed in Canada - it was driven by the province of Saskatchewan, which had hospitalization insurance a full decade before any involvement by the federal government. To say that regional social programs are doomed to fail is simply against historical fact. This is how federalism is supposed to work! Experimentation is done at smaller scale and success bubbles up.
2. Doctors are the enemy. This was surprising to me, because I'm friends with a good number of (residency) doctors and all are very passionate about health equality. Maybe their opinions will change once that private practice money starts rolling in, I don't know. But basically organized medicine has opposed socialized health programs in every country they have been tried - an interesting counterexample to the idea that labor organization will per se lead to better social outcomes.
3. Liberals won't get it done (and might make things worse). This makes sense if you view it as a negotiation: socialists need to be pushing hard for radical change in order for the final product to land somewhere in the middle. If you're talking about the need for moderation at the beginning of negotiations, you've already lost. A good litmus test to tell whether someone is serious about healthcare reform or just making impotent gestures in its direction.
4. Socialized healthcare means more than free access to care. In retrospect this one is obvious, but I somehow had missed it. Just having access to healthcare doesn't actually make you healthy. The social determinants of health are much more powerful than going to the doctor once years of poverty have already taken their toll. The scope very quickly expands and you start talking about housing access, food access, and just economic equality generally.
I’d agree that universal health care probably wouldn’t come about incrementally, but there is no fundamental reason we can’t improve the system incrementally.
The point about liberals is very true, not only about health care. Just like the current president, they're elected to find a compromise, which essentially guarantees that nothing important will be done. They're in effect a tool of the very wealthy to placate or dishearten the population, disconnecting them from the democratic process. In contrast, right wing politicians are very effective in achieving the goals designed by their elites.
(per this https://www.cms.gov/nosurprises/Ending-Surprise-Medical-Bill...)
The hospital in the article has a price transparency page here https://www.ssmhealth.com/resources/patients-visitors/pay-my... (behind multiple TOS of course). It seems to use epic / mychart. I used it to search for 'facility' and 'emergency' and got nothing. the embedded pdf bill calls this 'emergency services'.
My guess is that ER facility fee isn't a 'shoppable service' under CMS definitions because it can't be scheduled in advance, but the fact that it doesn't say 'abandon $800 ye who enter here' on the front door IMO should be a crime.
this thing https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21177150/january-2022...
What nonsense.
This argument is effectively charging a rent without the consent or agreement of the renter (the community).
If the service were reasonable, the community would agree to them. They are not, so the hostipital instead games the insurance system and preys on individuals without the resourses/ability to defend against their predation
Does anyone have a good one?
It's important, however, that your heirs understand this and don't say or do anything that can later be construed as having accepted the debt.