Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Compare prices that US hospitals charge patients, insurance companies

turquoise.health

151–160 of 389 posts

Re: Show HN: Compare prices that US hospitals charge patients, insurance companies

#151
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For folks who don’t believe in universal medical coverage, this is part of the reason why it’s so inefficient for it not to exist. The uninsured person going to the hospital at 1AM that requires an MRI because slipped a disc in their back still ends up getting that MRI. When they fail to pay that bill, which would be 5%-10% of their annual earnings, we all still pay for it. We just decided to layer in debt collection…

Also a fiscal conservative, I completely agree single-payer would be much better than what we have now. What I think would be best though, is to eliminate medicare/medicaid, hand people cash, and get out of the way. The high-order problem with medicine isn't coverage or insurance. It's price. There are only two ways to get price under control: meaningful competition, or government price controls (e.g. single payer).…

You’re advocating for the same system that ruined colleges: guaranteed loans.

Also coverage is also a huge deal in the US, although it may not be a problem for you specifically. Obamacare covered millions who otherwise might have stayed home instead of seeing the doctor.

The problem with US health is scoping. Insurance companies are effectively “certifying” which hospitals and doctors you can see instead of actual certification bodies.

Re: Show HN: Compare prices that US hospitals charge patients, insurance companies

#152

This is made possible thanks to the current administration’s CMS price transparency rule which went into effect Jan 1,2021 http://www.cms.gov/hospital-price-transparency Edit: By “current” I mean the Trump administration.

Out of curiosity, how much will this reduce the cost of health care? The idea, as it's been explained to me, is that visibility into the cost of medical care will result in downward price pressure. How much?

Re: Show HN: Compare prices that US hospitals charge patients, insurance companies

#153
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. There's a good breakdown that compares what drives healthcare spending between the US vs Germany (and others). https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/what-drives-health... The vast majority of the difference comes from just the raw cost of inpatient and outpatient care. Even if you were to completely zero out the administrative costs per capita, you'd hardly make a dent in bridging the gap.

>raw cost of inpatient and outpatient care I am interested to understand what makes the "raw" costs so wildly different. When my son had an infection in germany, we went to the equivalent of pediatric urgent care and after seeing the nurse, having bloodwork done and a few different 15 minute sessions with the physician we came to the end of the visit with the doctor, they apologized that we had to be charged the full…

> I am interested to understand what makes the "raw" costs so wildly different.

There are a number of reasons. One big one is simply that doctors in the US command a much higher salary than their counterparts elsewhere in the world:

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-do...

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/10/25/doctors-sal...

Another big reason is that the US is unique in that it's one of the only countries in the world where you get your healthcare through your employer. What we're seeing in healthcare costs is analogous to what you might see happen to airline ticket costs if we all got our air tickets through our employers: the vast majority of us would fly business class, while the unemployed would be simply unable to pay for business class fares out of pocket. Employers (especially medium-to-large businesses) have a much higher purchasing power (and hence, willingness to pay) than individuals.

Now, if you take this behavior and combine it with the fact that health insurers' profit margins are capped by law by percentage, insurers pay more for treatments (which doctors happily accept), charge more to employers (who are generally less price conscious vs individuals), thus bring in more absolute revenue, and therefore more profit because a capped profit percentage of a higher revenue is higher than a capped percentage of lower revenue. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, but the policy combination of an employer mandate and insurance profit cap results in the mother of all local optima.

Disclaimer: I work on health pricing in the US and sometimes adjust claims myself.

Re: Show HN: Compare prices that US hospitals charge patients, insurance companies

#154
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine it's on account of all the administration and intermediaries.

It's not. There's a good breakdown that compares what drives healthcare spending between the US vs Germany (and others). https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/what-drives-health... The vast majority of the difference comes from just the raw cost of inpatient and outpatient care. Even if you were to completely zero out the administrative costs per capita, you'd hardly make a dent in bridging the gap.

> The vast majority of the difference comes from just the raw cost of inpatient and outpatient care.

Question: What do we mean by "inpatient and outpatient care"?

Re: Show HN: Compare prices that US hospitals charge patients, insurance companies

#155
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For folks who don’t believe in universal medical coverage, this is part of the reason why it’s so inefficient for it not to exist. The uninsured person going to the hospital at 1AM that requires an MRI because slipped a disc in their back still ends up getting that MRI. When they fail to pay that bill, which would be 5%-10% of their annual earnings, we all still pay for it. We just decided to layer in debt collection…

Also a fiscal conservative, I completely agree single-payer would be much better than what we have now. What I think would be best though, is to eliminate medicare/medicaid, hand people cash, and get out of the way. The high-order problem with medicine isn't coverage or insurance. It's price. There are only two ways to get price under control: meaningful competition, or government price controls (e.g. single payer).…

aside: Singapore is a weird case and probably not a good comparitor for most healthcare systems.

> If people can't pay as much, the only thing for them to do is drop prices.

Or not offer the product at all. One problem with this entire area is that "healthcare" is really not one service/product area, and it is probably a mistake to treat it as such.

To be transparent, I don't share your optimism about market solutions to problems like this in general (more about their implementation in practice than theoretical benefits) but I can see how it might help with parts of the routine healthcare. However, when you are talking emergency and major treatments, it's well into the range where direct consumer driven decisions are more likely going to mess up the incentives badly.

If you are lucky enough to have the time (often not true), most people can become reasonably expert in their own disease state and treatment options. But that is a tiny slice of what is going on in a hospital system for example, and it's completely unreasonable to expect people to become informed enough to make good decisions there. If we want to benefit from market forces here, it's probably much more effective to have large (or single) payers who understand what the standard of care should be, and can encourage price competition from providers.

It's worth noting that in theory this is what the insurance industry does in the US, though, but is an expensive mess. Another confounding factor is that many obvious price discovery mechanisms will be completely unacceptable to most people.

Honestly, it's a mostly faith-based argument that a cash-based market approach can find a better global solution than universal health care, at least in a relevant amount of time. It's really hard for me to see why the country should take that risk when there are well understood and well modelled approaches (albeit imperfect) that should be able to reduce costs by at least 1/2, probably more.

Why not start there?

Re: Show HN: Compare prices that US hospitals charge patients, insurance companies

#156
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can that possibly be true? How can in/out patient care be so vastly different in cost?

Middle men. Lots and lots of middlemen.

That figure cuts out the middle-men by breaking out administrative costs.

Re: Show HN: Compare prices that US hospitals charge patients, insurance companies

#157
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a criminal racket. You have no position to negotiate and I have never got them to budge. I have tried and gotten pretty angry about it. Short-term insurance is a waste of money because the rates did not appear to be negotiated at all. They paid 5% of the bill and stuck me with the rest. The only reason to actually pay your bills is the hospital might eventually sue you. Its messed up.

If you don't pay, they'll budge eventually. Unless you're rich, maybe, but then paying more is socialized health care.

Unfortunately not my experience -- went to nearest ER for sudden and agonizing abdominal pain, got some basic pain meds, got a CAT scan to diagnose pneumonia, was sent home within a couple of hours (lots of waiting).

Turned out the hospital was not in network, they charged me $15,000 (including $10,000 for a "level 5" ER room stay, which is twice the most expensive price listed on the OP's website and is 10x the local average price for that service, despite the fact that my experience could not possibly have been Level 5 service). Eventually they just sold the debt to a collections agency. I tried to fight but they didn't seem to care, and why would they? They already sold the debt!

Re: Show HN: Compare prices that US hospitals charge patients, insurance companies

#158

It's always fascinating to see that even compared to prices you pay as a self-paying patient in Germany (which are already 1.5x - 2x higher than what the "public" insurances, ie. 85% of the population, pay for the same procedures), the prices in the US are about 5x to 10x higher. The standard of care seems to be quite comparable if you look at outcomes, so there must be huge inefficiences in the American system (doct…

I think a lot of people are missing one key difference. Healthcare in EU is based on solidarity system where every citizen pays a percentage share of his monthly salary to the medical insurance. So if you earn more, then you will also pay more medical insurance - but you will get the same treatment as others (unless you have some fancy private insurance on top of the regular insurance). So basically any medical expense is subsided by every citizen in the country indirectly.

I believe this is a completely different way of looking at things than in the US. The average EU citizen doesn't really think that the monthly medical deduction from his salary is just for his use or it's his own insurance, it's only a contribution to the whole system.

Re: Show HN: Compare prices that US hospitals charge patients, insurance companies

#159
Looking at some of the prices, I can't help but think how great an incentive it is to be healthy in the US. "Health is wealth" if it applies anywhere it is in the US.

I have taken extra measures to ensure that myself and my family are healthy in the last year and with a tax-free HSA account that is invested into ETFs, I am literally printing dollars just by following basic principles of being healthy.

Re: Show HN: Compare prices that US hospitals charge patients, insurance companies

#160

It's always fascinating to see that even compared to prices you pay as a self-paying patient in Germany (which are already 1.5x - 2x higher than what the "public" insurances, ie. 85% of the population, pay for the same procedures), the prices in the US are about 5x to 10x higher. The standard of care seems to be quite comparable if you look at outcomes, so there must be huge inefficiences in the American system (doct…

Those are "sticker prices", the opening for negotiation/haggling.

There's a bit of a lopsided leverage situation there...
Post reply on HN