Live data from Hacker News

Hospitals lift curtain on prices, revealing giant swings in pricing by procedure

healthcaredive.com

321–330 of 463 posts

Re: Hospitals lift curtain on prices, revealing giant swings in pricing by procedure

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When two pills coming from the same company are being made at the same time on the same machines, then they both cost the same. It's pretty obvious that the patient status changes nothing about that. However, the hospital's acquisition cost is variable because you're further down the supply chain and you're seeing the exact same kinds of arbitrary behind-the-scenes price swings that this article is talking about. It…

Under capitalism, a thing's cost to manufacture has nothing to do with the price of that something. Read that again and work through your objections. Ideally something's price is higher than its cost so the company can make a profit, but there are so many obvious exceptions that its nice, but not necessary. Thus, who cares how much the pill coming down line costs to manufacture, unless you start hacking into the free…

Eh, technically yes, but that's not really what I'm talking about. The way we use the word "cost" varies depending on the context, and I'm responding to a specific usage of that word. I'm not making a broad claim that drugs need to be sold at cost, I'm making a claim that drug costs are not so highly variable that coming up with a consumer price needs to take days of research after a procedure.

jonathan-adly is making the argument that the inherent "cost" of drugs is itself highly variable for hospitals, and that means it's normal and expected that hospitals should not be able to tell patients the price of procedure before it happens. I'm arguing that the "cost" of the drugs is not actually that variable, that hospitals are just downstream of another part of the industry that is engaged in the same price-hiding behavior that hospitals are engaged in.

Of course, under Capitalism "cost" doesn't determine price, the market determines price. But I would also point out that under Capitalism, signing a contract usually involves the terms of that contract being made upfront. Pretty much every other industry in America has figured out how to put a price tag on the products they sell, and I'm not sympathetic towards the medical industry just because up until now it's never needed to learn how. Apple sources its components from manufactures, those manufacturers could change their prices someday. But Apple still puts a price tag on iPhones, and because it needs to put a price tag on iPhones it's incentivized to form long-term contracts with suppliers and to demand a level of consistency in the prices its suppliers offer.

Hospitals haven't needed to do that in a long time.

Price transparency is an important part of most industries under Capitalism, and the medical industry hiding behind variable "cost" as an excuse to avoid pricing their products shouldn't be something we tolerate.

Martin Shrekili's practices (as abhorrent as they might be) are a different conversation. I think that price limits and price transparency are two very different issues.

Re: Hospitals lift curtain on prices, revealing giant swings in pricing by procedure

#322
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "This change alone would remove 25+% of unnecessary bloat from the US system." Where do you think the money is going? Insurance companies are not as profitable as you might think, drugs are not a massive burden on healthcare expenditures, and many hospitals are non-profits. The truth is that most of the money is going to staff wages; if you want to reduce healthcare spending, the only way to do it sustainably is to…

You are forgetting about all the brokers and all the staff at the insurance companies whose jobs is to negotiate different prices for procedures with different doctors. Most brokers charge 5%. Additionally, this change would cause a loss of some clinical jobs. A lot of the urgent cares would no longer be profitable and would have to get shutdown. Additionally, all these changes would ripple in other ways. Some provid…

If you accept Medicare, you cannot legally charge anyone less than the Medicare price.

I won’t say always, but Medicare price is usually marginal but not profitable. I.e. if you’ve got an empty bed, Medicare is better than nothing, but you wouldn’t actively try to fill beds at sub-Medicare rates even without the hassle of dealing with insurance companies

Re: Hospitals lift curtain on prices, revealing giant swings in pricing by procedure

#323

I am one of the people responsible for making these lists. The fact that the general public as well as journalists think this data is accurate in anyway is really funny. This an exercise of futility that only increases the overall cost and provides job security for me :) No one working in a hospital knows how much do we acquire things for, or how much we get paid for doing things in advance. And only like 8 people ca…

Pricing in general for any non commodity is the same kind of statistical joke.

That said, these price lists are an attempt to turn healthcare service delivery into commodities. Transparency, yes, but the lie is that healthcare is a market.

The alternative is nationalized care where all sorts of financial flows that now are optimized for profits, are so optimized no longer.

Most people living under and working for a nationalized system tend to like it. Most who live under or work for a commodity system tend not to, except for those positioned to receive profit flows.

Re: Hospitals lift curtain on prices, revealing giant swings in pricing by procedure

#324
post #290
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "This change alone would remove 25+% of unnecessary bloat from the US system." Where do you think the money is going? Insurance companies are not as profitable as you might think, drugs are not a massive burden on healthcare expenditures, and many hospitals are non-profits. The truth is that most of the money is going to staff wages; if you want to reduce healthcare spending, the only way to do it sustainably is to…

> Where do you think the money is going? To the millions of people making a living in the health care system that have no actual role (direct or indirect) in improving the health of patients.

I think this is far too facile. It's like saying half your taxes go to government waste. I mean sure, OK, but how do you get rid of government waste? So far no one has been able to do it. So this is really an unwillingness to engage in the problem, which is absolutely endemic in the current discourse.

The key problem is that 20% of our GDP goes to healthcare, and similarly 20% of our population is employed in healthcare provision. This isn't just people sitting around doing nothing. It's nurses, doctors, administrators, etc. If you want to reduce healthcare costs in half, so that it is only 10% of GDP, then expect to throw 10% of the population out of work. That will include nurses, doctors, EMT personnel as well as administrators. Sure, you can try to shift that and fire a bit more administrators than nurses, but you will soon discover that's about as easy as eliminating government waste.

This inability to address the core issue arisies from people approaching these difficult problems in administration and systems science from a facile moral point of view. "it's wrong!" they say, to be given a big bill for a snake bite. Well, OK, it's wrong. But that same attitude will tell you "it's wrong" to fire a hard working nurse, or to reduce the pay of a doctor, etc. So now you are left with boogeymen like greedy insurance companies and fat cat CEOs. This is like the person who insists on a tax cut funded by reducing government waste. It's not a serious proposal. And what we have in the US healthcare debate is two sides, the first side is just lying and obfuscating (that is the side opposed to reform) and the second side is so bound in the chain of moralizing that they are unable to make any serious proposals. They can only go after the fat cats, and not the nurses. Thus their proposals will never work.

Same thing for education -- you need to fire most of the university staff and reduce the pay or fire many of the teachers. Same thing for all the difficult problems in life where we complain that things cost too much. It is not shadowy fat cats that are causing these problems, it is too many people employed in the provision of services who are earning too much. Ordinary professionals. The biggest problems of modern life are that professionals have too much power and are extracting too much from the society as a whole. Whether it is hospital workers or government workers or teachers, the issues of skyrocketing costs and bureaucratic bloat are very similar across these areas, and they cannot be solved by getting rid of shadowy fat cats or employees that "do nothing".

Re: Hospitals lift curtain on prices, revealing giant swings in pricing by procedure

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dental insurance via employer is mostly just a way to pay for dental healthcare via pre tax dollars.

And FSAs do that without the insurance company overhead.

Yes, the only downside I can think of is if you have an HSA (which anyone that can afford max out of pocket limit should), then you generally cannot have FSAs also unless they are Limited Purpose FSAs and then it gets too complicated for my tastes. I generally do not like the concept of FSAs period, being employer owned, and having to use up funds by the end of the year and all.

Re: Hospitals lift curtain on prices, revealing giant swings in pricing by procedure

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voters not wanting to pay for comprehensive care for everyone is a 4th head. The current system of healthcare is great for allocating different amounts of healthcare to different classes of people, so that it is great for 20 to 30% of people, okay for 20%, and not good for 50%, and that is why it persists. There is no reason Medicare should be restricted to those over 65, or why Medicaid is implemented differently (a…

> There is no reason Medicare should be restricted to those over 65, or why Medicaid is implemented differently (and reimburses providers more poorly than Medicare). Or even Tricare. We have at least 3 different taxpayer funded healthcare programs specifically so not everyone can get access to equal care, but so that various classes of people can get healthcare proportional to their political power (which usually sca…

Medicare reimbursement levels are sufficient to support most medical practices. They charge more because they can, not because they have to. If reimbursement levels are cut then they'll find ways to improve efficiency, and then cut salaries.

Is there a reason that US doctors should get paid significantly more than their peers in other developed countries?

https://www.medscape.com/slideshow/2019-international-compen...

Re: Hospitals lift curtain on prices, revealing giant swings in pricing by procedure

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many hospitals are non-profits. That can't possibly be true of a hospital that charged $3000 for something on Tuesday, and $53000 for the same thing on Friday. (Under reasonable assumptions like that Tuesday wasn't done at a $25K loss relative to breaking even; why would such be the case? And that they are busy with procedures, not simply doing a way overpriced procedure once every few weeks, and then just burning…

PSA: Non profits can be as greedy as any other organization. Typically the money goes to wages for the leadership rather than profits to the owners.

> Non profits can be as greedy as any other organization.

The term ‘non-profit’ is one I find hilarious. With the smoke and mirrors of accounting and standard insurance company behaviour it can mean anything.

The directors can get bonuses, the cars can be upgraded and the conferences/holidays can get more impressive. It’s surprising that ‘non-profit’ doesn’t generate an eye-roll in more people.

Re: Hospitals lift curtain on prices, revealing giant swings in pricing by procedure

#328
I studied this years ago for years. My summary:

- a mandated MLR of 85% means the insurance companies have zero incentive to reduce the cost of items. In fact, their toplines and real (non%) profits increase as healthcare gets more expensive.

- industry profitability for insurance companies is around 3%. So, their overhead is around 15%-3% = 12%. They have an incentive to do their job cheaper. This pales in comparison to the 85% cogs.

- the small company cfo (me) has negative incentive to get involved in my employees' healthcare decisions. In fact, even being aware of cancer, pregnancy, etc. can be used against management in an employee lawsuit. No thanks. We just accept the situation and pay the bill.

- huge companies that can afford to self-insure can do it as they can firewall healthcare information from employment decision makers.

So, who in this system is going for cheaper healthcare:

- employees ... no

- insurance companies .. no

- healthcare providers ... no

- business paying the bills ... no

This bullshit billing structure is the tip of the iceberg. We have no freemarket incentives to keep down the cost of healthcare (i.e., carveout for high deductible insurance plans). Why would we expect otherwise?

Re: Hospitals lift curtain on prices, revealing giant swings in pricing by procedure

#329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under capitalism, a thing's cost to manufacture has nothing to do with the price of that something. Read that again and work through your objections. Ideally something's price is higher than its cost so the company can make a profit, but there are so many obvious exceptions that its nice, but not necessary. Thus, who cares how much the pill coming down line costs to manufacture, unless you start hacking into the free…

Eh, technically yes, but that's not really what I'm talking about. The way we use the word "cost" varies depending on the context, and I'm responding to a specific usage of that word. I'm not making a broad claim that drugs need to be sold at cost, I'm making a claim that drug costs are not so highly variable that coming up with a consumer price needs to take days of research after a procedure. jonathan-adly is makin…

>But I would also point out that under Capitalism, signing a contract usually involves the terms of that contract being made upfront.

There's nothing inherent to Capitalism that prevents variable priced contracts.

>Pretty much every other industry in America has figured out how to put a price tag on the products they sell,

Maybe for mass produced products they have, but certainly not for custom work. You aren't paying for a product but for a custom service. Paying a doctor to fix your body in many cases is more complex than paying someone to build a house, a bridge, or a piece of software. You won't even get an upfront price for something as simple remodeling your kitchen. A contractor estimates that it will cost $20k and then finds that a leak in your attic completely rotted some of the framing, now it's $50k. A builder starts digging the foundation to your house only to discover a huge boulder that has to be moved.

There are parts of medicine that could be made more transparent, but there is an inherent complexity that makes complete or even mostly complete price transparency impossible.

Re: Hospitals lift curtain on prices, revealing giant swings in pricing by procedure

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And FSAs do that without the insurance company overhead.

Yes, the only downside I can think of is if you have an HSA (which anyone that can afford max out of pocket limit should), then you generally cannot have FSAs also unless they are Limited Purpose FSAs and then it gets too complicated for my tastes. I generally do not like the concept of FSAs period, being employer owned, and having to use up funds by the end of the year and all.

Agreed. I only put money in an FSA that I know I am going to use. But for my routine cleanings/xrays/etc, this is pretty easy to calculate.
Post reply on HN