SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the there-should-be-an-app-for-that dept.
Fountain Valley resident Jennifer Moore makes a really good point.
"When you take your car to the mechanic, they give you a written estimate before they touch it," she told me.
"So why is it that when you go to the hospital, you have no idea how much something will cost until the bill arrives?"
Moreover, why are prices so completely different from one healthcare provider to another?
And why is it that when patients try to find out in advance how much something will cost, they're treated like unwelcome guests rather than equal partners in their own treatment?
[...] The near-total lack of transparency in healthcare pricing is a key reason we have the highest costs in the world — roughly twice what people in other developed countries pay.
Simply put, drugmakers, hospitals, labs and other medical providers face no accountability for their frequently obscene charges because it's often impossible for patients to know how badly they're being ripped off.
[...] Moore's insurer, Cigna, was charged $2,758 by the medical center for the two ultrasounds. However, Cigna gets a contractual discount of just over $1,000 because it's, well, Cigna. All insurers cut such sweetheart deals with medical providers.
That lowered the bill to $1,739. Cigna paid $500. That left a balance of $1,239, for which Mika was entirely responsible because she hadn't met her $1,250 deductible for the year.
Moore quickly ascertained online that the average cost for a pair of ultrasounds is about $500 — meaning the medical center's original $2,758 charge represented a more than 400% markup.
Cigna's lower contractual charge of $1,739 still meant the bill had been marked up more than 200%.
And the $1,239 Mika had to pay was more than twice the national average.
Wait, it gets even worse.
Moore said that after working her way through various levels of customer service in the medical center's billing department, she learned that the cash price for the two ultrasounds was $521.
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-07-29/column-could-our-healthcare-system-be-any-dumber
(Score: 3, Interesting) by krishnoid on Saturday August 03 2019, @04:46AM (17 children)
Yeah, but for them all that upfront cost has already been paid. Your visit would be a single bill in the stream that goes to the multiple insurers, which I doubt would be be a big deal. However, it would mean they're guaranteed there's no back and forth to get paid; they can *negotiate* -- ask to negotiate the price -- an actual price directly with you for immediate payment, and they'll probably cut a deal rather than insert you into the *non*-insurance payment plan/billing paperwork stream.
Still, I'd really like to know -- how do hospital management, administrative staff, and medical staff actually feel about socialized billing vs individual billing? Which of them would prefer it one way or the other, which of them are removed from the process enough that they don't care, and which informed ones don't care?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 03 2019, @05:16AM (16 children)
I don't personally know a single medical professional that's not adamantly against socialized medicine. Ditto Obamacare.
For "them" who? It sure as shit isn't already paid for our current healthcare providers. They have to keep a larger staff on hand because all the doctors and nurses spend at least half their time doing paperwork instead of treating people. Pay cash and they spend a tenth that time with your paperwork and get on to the next patient. Better for them, better for their patients.
Now before you say taking insurance out of the mix and socializing things would reduce paperwork too, I invite you to take a gander at the wonderful world of Medicare billing requirements. Government bureaucracies produce more paperwork and less actual work than any other system.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @05:44AM (6 children)
Ah yes, anecdotal bullshit.
The assumption that systems can not be fixed is ridiculoys. The real problem is the health insurance. Insurance operatives are bean counters by role, the very definition of pain in the ass burearacracy.
For profit is the major problem. Some sectors of human society should not be profit motivated, and should extend service to all. Humanity can support this, thus it is a moral imperstive.
Wait there's more, the literal examples abound of successful social healthcare systems. Everything else is FUD in the worst way, where the death panels are everyday insurance auditors, undoubtedly with their employment tied to performance metrics and unwavering "guide lines." And here is our resident bird brain shrilly bleating their cheers.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 03 2019, @12:56PM (5 children)
He asked for anecdotal, dumbass.
No, dumbass, it can't support this. Available care and advancements at the pace the US has set cannot be maintained without paying a whopping fuckload more than the US government takes in in taxes every year. Oh, sure, if your little nation is willing to be a parasite and sponge off US innovation you'll be able to get by for a while with slow, mediocre care. If we do it the science of medicine slows to a trickle and you're all fucked though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @01:10PM (1 child)
I'm pretty sure the Chinese disagree with you and will eat the USA's lunch within 5-10 years.
Being able to buy the same meds from Canada for much much cheaper than they can be purchased in the US clearly demonstrates that the US consumer is getting screwed. The existence of "medical destination" countries also prove this fact.
Your "We are the US and fuck you for not being the US" attitude leads to you paying a lot more, and getting a lot less, than the rest of the civilized world. Complacency leads to downfall. Just ask ... oh, wait, you can't because they are already extinct.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 03 2019, @02:11PM
No, it doesn't. And your ability to reason is clearly suspect if you believe it does. Now we are getting screwed but you are wrong in your proof of how and don't comprehend the why.
It's not an attitude. We objectively, empirically are the shit when it comes to advancing medicine. Deal with it or start pulling your weight.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday August 03 2019, @03:57PM
Oh, woe is Big Pharma! They will certainly DIE if we had a reasonable payment system for most people.**
No, they wouldn't. Be rational. You don't outlaw private insurance. This is where we make the huge amount of inequality in the U.S. work for everyone! It's all simple -- rich people will continue to pay ridiculous sums just to live a little longer. Let them. They can subsidize Big Pharma and "innovation." Capitalism at work.
Meanwhile, give everyone at least an OPTION for reasonable healthcare. Maybe it's 5 years behind what the rich get (or whatever is worked out), so you can't get the latest experimental treatment that will cost you a million dollars a year. But Big Pharma gets its stupid profits to "innovate" (as well as pay its CEOs, which is where a huge amount of this is going too), the average American gets healthcare, and money is siphoned out of the rich to decrease inequality maybe just a little in the name of improving society overall. Win-win for everyone!
Oh, but wait -- you object that the rich should pay more? Nope, that's capitalism for you. The idea of a "fixed price" is a socialist construct come up by Quakers and other liberals, forced on the population in the late 19th century. Before that, most goods had to be negotiated for, and if a seller sensed you had more money to pay, chances are you'd be offered a higher price. We return to the roots of capitalism to save "innovation" -- isn't that what you want?!
---
**Not to mention that the current state of medicine is high enough that the average lifespan has been extended well beyond what many people could expect a few generations ago. I'd be happy if I continued to have access to the current level of medical care for the remainder of my life, if it were offered at reasonable cost.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @04:07PM
Sounds like US is a 3rd world country. And the "advancements" are not made by the last-mile of the healthcare system but mostly by the publicly funded researchers. And "available care" is not available, unless you can pay. Like in 3rd world country.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Health_care_cost_rise.svg [wikimedia.org]
You are doing something really fucked up when you start at same place and are the only outlier. And not only that, on this group you are the ONLY country without a universal healthcare system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @04:35PM
Ah, there's muh R&D.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hendrikboom on Saturday August 03 2019, @12:46PM (6 children)
I do. But I live in Quebec in Canada. Many of the doctors that move from here to the U.S for the "big bucks" return to Quebec so that they can actually practice medicine instead of dealing with insurance companies and lawyers.
-- hendrik
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 03 2019, @01:02PM (5 children)
Several of the medical professionals I know just flat quit practicing when Obamacare went through. More bullshit, less helping people. The insurance industry we have today is by no means a good thing but then neither is our government. Neither is currently capable of being the answer to this question.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @02:09PM (3 children)
And no one said Obamacare was what they want. Medicare for all is the least that should be done, but since it will be universal then the bureaucratic red tape should disappear.
I say should because those greedy insurance fucks will undoubtedly grease some wheels to keep the pork rolling in. Don't like wasted time and money? Bitch at the corrupt assholes.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 03 2019, @02:15PM (2 children)
You're fucking hilarious. Even the other Dems running this time around know "medicare for all" will cost way, way, way too fucking much for us to pay. Estimates from the fucking Dems say it's going to cost like 75% of what we take in in taxes every year all by itself. The only ones fucking retarded enough to believe that shit are you and Kamala Harris.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @04:37PM
The record has been successfully corrected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @07:44PM
You aren't factoring in the shitload of money people currently pay. So yes, M4A costs a ton of money, but the current system does too. A huge chunk of people just don't notice because the money comes straight out of their check, they get subsidies, or they are already on Medicare/Medicaid.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 03 2019, @02:43PM
Saw some of that too. For the most part, the doctors were aging, at the point of maybe retiring anyway. They were just written off as retirees. But, some of them explained to patients and acquaintances exactly why they were retiring *NOW* as opposed to "in a few more years".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @12:48AM
Of course not, that would mean that they'd no longer be allowed to gouge the patients. Either that or they're lousy doctors that are concerned about having to actually get results.
Doctors tend to care a lot about patients and their ability to get needed care. Sure, you've got incompetent assholes like the ones you're talking to that only care about money. But, doctors don't like watching patients get sick and die due to a lack of access to treatments. They'd prefer to worry about getting the diagnosis and treatment right rather than trying to figure out if the patient is actually going to be able to get the needed treatment. At least with socialized medicine denial of treatment is mostly based upon a statistical analysis of whether or not it makes sense rather than what it's going to do to the insurance company's bottom line.
Few people in countries with socialized medicine would give it up for what we have in the US. And for good reason, we pay a ton of money for mediocre results. And that's assuming you can afford it in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @05:46AM
the human tendency, at least in the US, to want to fleece money out of the government is very real and ongoing. providers, administrators, and patients routinely try to concoct schemes against Medicare and its patients in the US.
a live medical ID is more valuable than a credit card number because of this.