Showing posts with label hospitals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hospitals. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

DC Johnston: End insurance co-payments

Here's another one from David Cay Johnston, this time on the outrageous inefficiency of U.S. hospitals:

American hospitals spend a huge and growing share of their revenue on overhead, a study published today in Health Affairs shows. Getting those costs down should be a national priority.

U.S. hospitals on average spend 25.3 cents out of each dollar of revenue on overhead, with for-profit hospitals spending 27 percent and nonprofits a bit below the average.

By contrast, the Netherlands and England, which have the next highest overhead costs, spend 19.8 percent and 15.5 percent, respectively. Both are moving toward market-based financial models, so, as with the U.S., overhead costs are likely to rise.

[...] The new study helps explain why for every $1 the 33 other countries with advanced economies spend per person on universal health care, the United States spends $2.64 — and yet more than one-fifth of Americans have no or poor health insurance.  A significant reason the U.S. health care system is so expensive and inefficient turns out to be those annoying co-pays. 

Here's one suggestion: eliminate co-pays. Here's why:

In economics “rational” is a term of art. It means groups of people consistently making choices that maximize their benefits and minimize their costs. 

By this definition, the promotion of co-pays by employers and insurers fails the rationality test. Why? Because co-pays discourage people, especially those with meager incomes, from seeing doctors and obtaining medications. That reduces immediate spending on doctor visits and drugs but not total costs over the longer term. Instead, when people who are squeezed financially do not pick up their medications, thus avoiding the co-pay, they later will need more intensive and costly care, which drives up total costs for health care as well as increasing human misery and shortening lives.

When co-pays discourage getting drugs and visiting doctors, which results in more costly medical problems later, the system is irrational. When those payments eat up as much as or even more than they bring in, the system is more so.

Here is a suggestion: Get rid of co-pays. Instead let’s just add a prominent line on paycheck stubs that reads, “Your health care is paid separately, and it cost X dollars this pay period.” That would help make the American economy more efficient and more humane.


By David Cay Johnston
September 8, 2014 | Aljazeera

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Why is U.S. healthcare so expensive?




By Terry Gross
August 7, 2013 | NPR

It costs $13,660 for an American to have a hip replacement in Belgium; in the U.S., it's closer to $100,000.

Americans pay more for health care than people in many other developed countries, and Elisabeth Rosenthal is trying to find out why. The New York Times correspondent is spending a year investigating the high cost of health care. The first article in her series, "Paying Till It Hurts," examined what the high cost of colonoscopies reveals about our health care system; the second explained why the American way of birth is the costliest in the world; and the third, published this week in The Times, told the story of one man who found it cheaper to fly to Belgium and have his hip replaced there, than to have the surgery performed in the U.S.

Rosenthal has also been investigating why costs for the same procedure can vary so much within the U.S. — by thousands of dollars, in some cases — depending on where it's being performed. Before becoming a journalist, Rosenthal trained as a doctor and worked in the emergency room of New York Hospital, now part of New York-Presbyterian Hospital.

She joins Fresh Air's Terry Gross to talk about why American medical bills are so high, and what needs to change.

Interview Highlights

On the goal of her health care series

"[The purpose is] to make Americans aware of the costs we pay for our health care. Because so many of us have insurance and we don't see the bills, we tend to think of health care as free. 'Why not get that colonoscopy? It doesn't cost anything. What's the difference if my hip replacement costs $100,000? I'm not paying.' But, in fact, we're all paying. And as we know, health care is a huge cause of individual bankruptcies now. Copays and deductibles are going up, and the nation — because it pays for a lot of medical care and subsidizes a lot of medical care — just can't afford the way we're doing this anymore."

On the man who went to Belgium to get a hip replacement

"In Belgium, he paid $13,660 for everything. That included his new hip implant, the surgeon's fees, the hospital fees, a week in rehab and a round-trip plane ticket from the U.S., soup to nuts.

"Now, if he had done that surgery in the U.S, it would've been billed at somewhere between $100,000 and $130,000 at a private hospital. ... So there's a huge difference. In fact, this gentleman, Mr. Shopenn, was a great consumer, and he tried to have it done in the U.S., and he priced out joint implants and found that the wholesale joint implant cost ... was $13,000. So in the U.S., for that $13,000 he could get a joint — a piece of metal and plastic and ceramic — whereas in Europe he could get everything."

On joint-makers keeping prices high

"You would think that if five different companies were making candy bars, that would drive the price of candy bars lower. But if five different companies are making joints and trying to sell them at $10,000 a piece, it's really in no one's interest to say, 'Hey, guess what guys? I'm going to sell mine for $1,000 because that's what it really costs me to make it.' Because then everyone loses money; the whole industry kind of implodes."

On the challenge of standardizing medical equipment

"It's hard to get the companies to, say, standardize the equipment ... so you can use a generic system to implant any brand of joint. It's not in their interest to do that. It's like saying to Apple and Microsoft, 'We want all of your programs to be completely interchangeable.' At some level, at a business level, you want your brand distinct, and you want to keep people in the universe of your brand. In many ways, it's a business decision as much as a medical decision."

On how billing practices in the U.S. compare to those in Europe

"Routinely, for most procedures in other countries, patients stay in the hospital longer; their hospital bills are much less. They tend to see things as a package. I think one of the most striking things when you look at the Belgian hospital bill, as opposed to the U.S. one, is on the U.S. hospital bill for a joint replacement, you see things like operating room fees, recovery room fees. And those [were on] one of the bills I looked at: operating room fees, $13,000; recovery room fees, $6,000; facility fees, x-thousand dollars.

"If you look at a European bill, those things don't exist. And you know, in fact, it was kind of funny when I started on this series — although sad in another way — when I would call some of the European hospitals and say, 'Well, what's your facility fee on that? What's your operating room fee?' and there was this puzzled pause at the other end of the line where they said, 'What do you mean an operating room fee? You can't do the surgery without an operating room. That's a part of our day rate for the hospital. It's all included.' "

On pregnancy costs in the U.S. versus Europe

"Because we pay one by one by one, we have this kind of more-is-better attitude, or 'Why not check and see if the baby is in good position? Why not check and see if the baby is growing?' Whereas in most other countries, the care of a pregnant woman is kind of dictated purely by medicine, what needs to be done. So it's not that in these European countries they aren't getting their prenatal testing and they're not getting their prenatal scans — they are, they're just not getting as many as we do. Because we kind of tend to use a lot of them for like-to-know rather than need-to-know, and again, that gets very, very expensive."

On what needs to change

"Every part of the system needs to rethink the way it's working. Or maybe what I'm really saying is we need a system instead of 20, 40 components, each one having its own financial model, and each one making a profit."

Friday, May 10, 2013

Obama reveals hospitals' real prices. Now what??

There goes that socialist Obama Administration again!:

The database released on Wednesday by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services lays out for the first time and in voluminous detail how much the vast majority of American hospitals charge for the 100 most common inpatient procedures billed to Medicare. The database -- which covers claims filed within fiscal year 2011 -- spans 163,065 individual charges recorded at 3,337 hospitals located in 306 metropolitan areas.

This time Obama had the gall to publicly release information about the real prices that hospitals and doctors charge for medical procedures.  So that people, can, like, you know, compare prices and stuff.

If that sounds like something out the free market, you're right. But that doesn't matter, because it was OBAMA who publicized the information!  He always has a diabolical ulterior motive!  We just don't know what it is yet....

Seriously though, I know from personal experience that the prices hospitals charge are totally wacko. Recently my young child spent five days in the hospital while our registration for new health insurance, retroactive to Jan. 1, was still in process.  She's perfectly fine now, thank Allah, but we subsequently received a hospital bill for $31,000.  Bill collectors immediately started to call the house several times a day, every day, and all we could tell them was the same thing the insurance company told us: the paperwork is still in process; later the hospital could re-submit the claim.  

After our health insurance finally kicked in and the claim was processed, the hospital told us over the phone that our share would be about $3,000, but a few months have passed and still no bill for $3,000.  Meanwhile the hospital's billing office asked us to submit an application for a discount, which we did.  I suspect that $3,000 remaining charge will simply disappear, but if not.... Thankfully, I can afford to pay it, but for most poor families an unexpected medical emergency like that would ruin them.  

Indeed, medical bills are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S.

This case illustrates why health care can never be a free market.  First, the patient has no clue what he needs to buy.  If you're in critical condition and the doctor says, "We're going to stick this tube down your throat," you're not going to second-guess him... and meanwhile bargain or threaten to "take your business elsewhere."  No, you just do whatever he says, immediately. (This is assuming you're conscious at the time; otherwise the doctor just does it.)  

As a medical "consumer," you rarely have an actual choice.  Without information/knowledge, prices and choice there cannot be a competitive free market.  

The most that such information provided by Obama can do is help a patient after the fact who asks his provider, "Why did you charge me so much, when Hospital X down the road charges one-tenth as much for the same thing?"  But a patient is in a pretty weak bargaining position ex post facto.

This case also illustrates why everybody needs to be insured.  You cannot plan for the unplanned that costs who-knows-how-much.  And you're in no condition to bargain when you're critically ill.  That's why people buy insurance.  But for any kind of insurance scheme to work, the insurance pool has to be large enough to spread out risk and expense over many customers/insured.

Usually it's the 49 million poorer Americans who have no health insurance. The sick irony is that those people who are least able to pay are the ones asked to pay the full, "real" price of medical treatment.  Of course they often cannot pay.  So the hospital's actual cost for that treatment, whatever it really is, gets passed onto those who can pay, i.e. to health insurance companies.  It's a terribly messed-up "system."

Again, let me remind you that Obamacare opts to work primarily through this existing labyrinth of private health insurance.  This is the same system that Republicans think is not broken so we don't need to fix it.  Obamacare's most unpopular aspect -- the individual mandate -- requires people to participate in this "free-market" system.  It sets up new healthcare exchanges where people can buy private health insurance.  This is all as the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney said it should be, before Obama took their suggestion and they decided they hated it.  

Whereas many liberals like myself want us to have a single-payer system, aka Medicare for all, to keep down costs and ensure universal coverage. But our compromiser-in-chief didn't opt for that route, he never even tried.  


By Jeffrey Young and Chris Kirkham
May 8, 2013 | Huffington Post

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Economics drives doctors to hospitals, away from GOP

Well, well, well, it looks like the Walmartization of medicine is driving individual medical practices the way of the mom & pop shop. Meanwhile, now that doctors are basically corporate employees instead of individual proprietors, they are abandoning the GOP and joining the Democrats on issues like universal insurance, liability caps, patients' rights, etc.

Will the same conservatives who cheer on Walmart and the death of Main Street businesses as the inevitable victory of market forces now complain about the death of private medical practices, because market forces are hurting the GOP's political fortunes?


By Gardiner Harris
May 30, 2011 | New York Times