Live data from Hacker News

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

turquoise.health

371–380 of 389 posts

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

#371

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?

This is meant to put market pressure on medical svcs. This new transparency rule only applies to hospitals, it does not cover independent Practices.

There will be several 2nd order effects, where the overall impact is unknown: 1. The transparency rule not only reveals prices to consumers, but also to other insurance companies and other hospitals. Since these price arrangements were until now secret, that will impact negotiations between payors and hospitals in competitive markets like major cities. This is likely to force outliers on both the cheap end and expensive end to bring their rates closer to market. If either hospital or the insurer cannot bring their rates closer to market, this may accelerate consolidation of hospitals to improve negotiating power, and/or cause smaller insurers to drop hospitals from their network. This may give some room to relief to small practices that were formerly in danger of losing payor "network" access; at least while the big coverage fights happen upstream between hospitals and payors.

2. the transparency list is not comprehensive. So, not all medical services are shoppable (i.e. scheduled in advance, typically non life-threatening), this may cause hospitals to shift costs to services that consumers have no control over, meaning (1) emergency and (2) unlisted procedures. It will take a few years for hospitals to understand the impact the rule has on their bottom line. The implication is that there will be a waterfall of margin pressure on scheduled procedures at independent doctors , but it will take time to happen.

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

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Personal opinion (as a health economist) is that this is a nice policy, but probably not going to do that much. You as a consumer now have the ability to search, but do you have an incentive to do so? Do the savings come to you? Some of it, perhaps. But it's likely not that much and only under some circumstances. E.g., if you are just faced w/ a copay on a visit, your copay is going to be the same at two facilities.…

I respectfully disagree to one piece of your logic.

The effect. The effect will be strong.

The logic that you posit to contradict this is that for most patients "there will be no incentive to search for better prices". That seems to ignore entirely the dynamics of other established businesses like supermarkets.

Most people go to supermarkets and the vast majority are not looking for the absolute best price or even the median price. However supermarkets battle out in pricing to catch the few customers that they know are price sensitive. Its the minority rule. This is a positive externality by which everyone benefits.

This same dynamic will be observed in healthcare.

I agree in that much of it is unknown and also the time horizon is very uncertain. But the effect will be felt and it will be profound.

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

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California collected all of their hospitals' data at https://oshpd.ca.gov/data-and-reports/cost-transparency/hosp... The average prices for common procedures is on the 1045 sheet I have my gripes with California but I love that they did this

Woah, I'm a CA resident and also surprised and happy. Are you seeing a lot of non-compliance?

Compliance seems pretty good. The ones I haven't imported are because they're using an unusual format. Compliance on the new 2021 rule about payer-negotiated charges seems very spotty though.

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

#374
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many Americans who use expensive specialty drugs have prescription drug coverage and don’t pay the entire price of the drug. And/or they get a discount through manufacturers programs. That said, my insurance does not cover the above drug.

So practically speaking, many Americans have to wait even longer than those in the UK? Even if they have insurance? And perhaps even a well paying job with good benefits (an assumption of mine based on the setting).

I don’t follow. What would they be waiting for?

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

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chargemaster prices (the non-negotiated price) are ridiculously high in the US. They’re so high that some hospitals will give uninsured patients a break of “half off” without even negotiating. The reason for this is that chargemaster price is a fake dollar price resulting from a broken incentive structure and process. Here’s a setup: A hospital is working out a negotiated rate for aggregate services with an insurance…

This is not that plausible as an analysis of the role of chargemasters. I agree that the chargemaster prices are fake, but what you are proposing is: Hospital: "Our insurance partners pay us a fraction x of Chargemaster charge X, so let's make C larger ." The insurer understands the game being played here, just like you do. It's not like the insurer doesn't also realize just like you do that the chargemaster price is…

I'm saying that the hospitals and insurers, while somewhat adversarial at times, are largely aligned in their incentives. Chargemaster prices can drift upwards while negotiated discount rates fall to compensate.

The hospital makes more margin off of people not covered by the insurer, the insurer is largely insulated from the change, and everybody comes away okay... except the uninsured patient who has no negotiating power.

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

#376
post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well he was just shoving the issues under the rug. In fairness, he's not wrong, and neither is parent. Hospitals companies have local monopolies, which they can use to charge ridiculously high prices. On the other hand, insurance companies do get a kickback of sorts when the hospitals bump prices - the negotiators get compensation based on the dollar amount of savings they can bring from negotiation, so effectively,…

Yeah, that’s another good nuance. Ultimately many factors drive hyperinflationary healthcare costs. Everyone’s making money. I think my takeaway from the whole conversation is that the insurance business can be counterintuitive to outsiders. Salvation may not be as simple as getting rid of them. Another tidbit is that insurance companies don’t mind being the bad guys. I’m not sure if our focus on that industry blinds…

I don't think eliminating private insurers is a panacea. I just think that the nature of incentives and negotiation between hospitals and insurers has resulted in plainly ridiculous chargemaster prices that harm uninsured and underinsured patients (including those who are "out of network").

Public disclosure and reputational price-indexing as well as regulation of emergency and regionally-monopolized non-elective care would help a lot, but backing the train up on decades of broken incentives and profit-optimized behavior is no small task.

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

#377
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So practically speaking, many Americans have to wait even longer than those in the UK? Even if they have insurance? And perhaps even a well paying job with good benefits (an assumption of mine based on the setting).

I don’t follow. What would they be waiting for?

[deleted]

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

#378

I think something else that would be of interest would be doing this for drug prescriptions: compare the cost that my employer, the NHS, pay for a compound and those that Americans pay for the exact same compound. This is easy on my end at least -- prices and prescription guidance are released in the BNF / British National Formulary annually and are all made available in public. I have never understood the US system…

> I have never understood the US system of "co-pays" and found the whole thing very confusing. I think you're mixing up a few things here. The co-pays are meant to make the patient directly pay some of the cost to decrease abuse of the system. There are many different structures for co-pays so saying anything general is kind of difficult, but there are reasonable arguments supporting such a system. In Sweden for exam…

Not allowing an insurance company to negotiate for the price of a drug or service is precisely why medicare and medicaid have ballooned up to 39% of US federal spending while not even approaching "universal" coverage.

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

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The strongest counterpoint to this is that despite America's high healthcare consumption, that health outcomes are significantly worse than Europe. In particular in terms of life expectancy. Just look at the life expectancy of France and Germany to disprove your theories. The big difference between the American healthcare system and the one in these countries is that people don’t have to worry about the bills, whic…

I'd really encourage you to read through the first link because it goes into very careful detail. But the point is there's nothing unusual about America's high spending given its very high income levels. In particular look at this chart from the source.[1] Let's use France as a comparison point since you mentioned it. Household disposable income in the US is about 36% higher than France. That's about equivalent to th…

> Household disposable income in the US is about 36% higher than France

I've seen the prices of procedures and drugs in France and in the United States (that is, before insurance, because no-one really worries about the price of healthcare in France given you get reimbursed more the more expensive your procedures are, which is how things are supposed to be), and it's definitely not 36% more expensive. Everything is at least 10 times more expensive.

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

#380
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things that EU countries do is negotiate with the the drug manufacturers. So UK in this case of Lumacaftor, didn't cover the drug until they got a reasonable price. This meant a 4 year delay in access to the drug vs the US. > It was approved for medical use in the United States in 2015, and in Canada in 2016.[3][5] In the United States it costs more than $US 22,000 a month as of 2018.[6][7] While its use w…

To some degree, the EU (and Canada's similar practice) forces US consumers to underwrite the cost of R & D that creates many of these drugs in the first place.

Instead of that, perhaps the US consumers are simply being overcharged?
Post reply on HN