Health insurers just published close to a trillion hospital prices

Why that article points out the US spends $12k/capita on healthcare the singles out administrative costs at $1k/capita while ignoring all the other relevant factors is beyond me. They then use the misleading infant mortality stat, ignoring that the US considers vastly more babies viable than any other country, meaning we try to save infants that other countries write off, thus they count against the US when it fails, but not against the other countries that don't count them as viable. It's a really poor article ignoring important nuance in what it presents.

The US pays about twice per nurse or doctor in the system, and part of that is because the US pays nearly twice for most skilled work. So, to get prices like most other developed nations, we would be forced to cut nurse and doctor salaries, which would likely lower quality of workers as future workers went to more lucrative fields, which would likely lower outcomes.

The US can have higher cost or lower quality. How would you make this tradeoff?

I work in data at https://www.carrumhealth.com/, and I've been parsing this data for weeks. The transparency prices allow us to meaningfully negotiate with providers, and make tangible, incremental progress toward cheaper health care. Providers and existing insurance carriers leverage information asymmetry to control the market otherwise.

For context, we bundle the 100's of itemized costs into a single, static bill per surgery type. In doing so, we've built a custom virtual-network with the most efficient surgeons. These surgeons are able to meet the volume and quality requirements to allow for lower margins. We're able to get negotiated rates that are 10-40% cheaper than traditional insurance contracts when we have data that we trust.

Unfortunately, this data alone isn't enough to properly determine prices because organizations will spread costs across procedure and billing codes that often occur in aggregate groups. For example, in a joint replacement surgery, some organizations may dump the cost into the billing for the implant itself, while others may put it under the procedure code. You have to gather billing data en masse to see which charges occur together, then combine this pricing data to determine what costs will actually look like for someone experiencing a procedure.

It's a nightmare!

> In the newly-released data, each "negotiated rate" (or simply "price") is associated with a lot of metadata, but it boils down to: who's paying, who's getting paid, what they're getting paid for, plus some extra fluff to keep track of versioning. The hundreds of billions of prices in the dataset (probably over a trillion) result from all the possible combinations of these things.

They basically denormalized all the dimensions.

Imagine you have a function which takes 5 arguments and returns one value. You could give me the source code and let me run this function. Or you could give me a mapping of every possible combination of the 5 inputs to the returned value. The former could be quite small, but the latter would be a massive number of rows.

I wonder what their egress bill will be if a large number of people are interesting in parsing this data.

How much do you think it costs to maintain all these negotiated contracts VS just having a single payer system with the same price for all procedures?