Live data from Hacker News

Health insurers just published close to a trillion hospital prices

dolthub.com

531–540 of 549 posts

Re: Health insurers just published close to a trillion hospital prices

#531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of the current failures are due to conservative provincial governments (looking at you, Ontario...) purposely underfunding before and into the pandemic. We are now reaping what they have sown. This is a classic "underfund to prove the system doesn't work thus we must privatize it!" move.

How much do you estimate this is being underfunded, and do you believe proper funding for healthcare would push the percentage of GDP closer to the US number?

Ontario is consistently the lowest spender per capita on health in the country.

Ref: https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/interprovincial-...

It's being underfunded by at least 10-15%, which is a lot for a system expected to run as cost effectively as possible. I'm getting that number from the average of $5336 vs ON at $4800. 4800/5336 = ~89%

I don't think we should aspire to US levels of GDP share. That seems quite excessive.

I think the solutions to our issues are structural changes and adequate funding.

Re: Health insurers just published close to a trillion hospital prices

#532
post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are people genetically predisposed to gain weight And this genetic mutation somehow happened in the last 50-100 years or so? Obese people have always existed. Obese poor people are fairly new. The root cause is diet, not genetics.

It's "common knowledge!" Read "a contamination theory of the obesity epidemic" to see how incorrect your assumptions are.

[deleted]

Re: Health insurers just published close to a trillion hospital prices

#533
post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the US's problem is that the list prices it pays for GPs, nurses, and services are subject to market forces and thus are too high. The government is currently failing to address the service provision loss with little political will to decrease list prices (even though they would propagate through to consumers as decreased costs). Yeah that's completely untrue; the list prices that insurers pay for GPs are heavi…

> big reason for this is that employers (especially medium-to-large businesses) have a much higher purchasing power (and hence, willingness to pay) than individuals. I'm going to call you on this point, because what you're hinting at, whether you realize it or not, is that employers need to step up their medical care spend management game, which if implemented, looks damn near dystopian. As someone that works in insu…

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. The point I'm making is that employers are not capable of being optimizers because they will generally be willing to spend more on medical care than individuals, and it's because they think about money very differently from individuals. Employers are generally able to swallow a premium increase of $15,000 -> $20,000 per employee per year (it just gets rolled up into total compensation). It's usually a drop in the bucket for employers, but to an individual that's actually a lot of money. It's the same reason why corporations typically cover business class (or economy plus) air travel without blinking an eye, whereas many individuals spring for basic economy depending on their willingness to pay. Showing employers the shape of their medical care spend doesn't change that equation all that much for the same reason that enterprises today are willing to spend more on SaaS licenses than individuals (or even small businesses) regardless of how precisely their QuickBooks or NetSuite instance shows them the shape of their SaaS spend. I work in insuretech too, sometimes even work directly with employer HR teams, and see this behavior all the time. We agree that employers should not be the optimizers here. It's not that they need to step up their spend management game, it's that the way they play that game will always be different from the way individuals play that game, and that's a big part of why per capita $'s spent are even able to be so inflated in the first place.

What I'm suggesting is that the proven private sector model is one where employers are simply not involved, not a part of the equation. Private insurance purchased on the individual market. That's exactly how it works in Switzerland, the Netherlands, and also how it works in Medicare Advantage (seniors directly buy their insurance plans using dollars they theoretically set aside over the course of their lifetime through Medicare FICA taxes).

The most practical way to get there, in America, would be to either enact Medicare Advantage For All, or to tweak the employer mandate to only include ICHRAs rather than group health insurance. ICHRAs are employer-sponsored funds (in lieu of employer sponsored insurance) that the employee-beneficiary uses to buy health insurance on the individual market.

Re: Health insurers just published close to a trillion hospital prices

#534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how the heck you jumped from "drive motorcycles" to "drive cars". Driving cars would be minor and apply to almost everyone, so it would mostly cancel out and be negligible. Really it would be a slight discount for taking transit, and that seems... fine to me. And those other ones aren't even notable risk factors.

Not people who live in dense cities with good subway systems and a walkable infrastructure. Driving is one of the most dangerous things humans do. The argument that all health care should be private– the perspective this comment addressed– would not make such a consolation simply because it's common.

> Not people who live in dense cities with good subway systems and a walkable infrastructure.

Yeah, so almost everyone.

> Driving is one of the most dangerous things humans do. The argument that all health care should be private– the perspective this comment addressed– would not make such a consolation simply because it's common.

Car deaths are about 1% of deaths. Heart disease and cancer are each around 15x as likely.

Even if it's high on the danger scale, I don't think it would be a very big factor in health care costs.

Re: Health insurers just published close to a trillion hospital prices

#535
post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there is a reason why we shouldn't go off of anecdotal evidence. It's blatantly false. Doctors’ salaries account for only about 8% of U.S. healthcare costs. A 40% cut in these salaries would reduce healthcare spending by only about 3% [1][2]. Doctor salaries are not a huge way to cut costs. If anything this would make the problem worse. [1] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-09-14/dont-blame-... [2] https…

It’s not false that doctors worry that. Doctors worry that single payer system will reduce their salaries. They’re an easy political target. They’re rich and (in this hypothetical case) their salary would come from the taxpayers. Taxpayers don’t like expensive salaries. It’s irrelevant how much of the budget it is. It’s about perception and power. If you try to cut soap in the operating room or other supplies, you’ll…

[deleted]

Re: Health insurers just published close to a trillion hospital prices

#536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA is wasting the bulk of their funding in an obsolete launch system. Over the he past 50 years they have held back any economical progress in access to space. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/nasas-artemis-rocket...

???? NASA brought us SpaceX and other competitive private space companies... can't blame them when Obama got rid of the budget for these wasteful things then they had to back peddle because of politics ... "jobs" lost in all those states... basically a socialist program for those workers to have a job. "Over the he past 50 years they have held back any economical progress in access to space." without NASA there would…

You don't know that.

Re: Health insurers just published close to a trillion hospital prices

#537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect it's a bit of a chicken/egg problem (based on my opservations from visiting the US). Even in suburban areas there seems to be roads everywhere, often very hard to cross without a car. Where I live in Europe, the expectation is that the kids will walk or take the bike to school. 95% of the paths they need to travel is covered by walkways (usually separated from the roads, and in many cases with dedicated bik…

Where i live in the suburbs we don't even have sidewalks ffs. I live about 3 blocks from my kids' school, yet they are driven or take the bus to school because kids are not allowed to bike or walk to elementary or middle school, unfortunately. wow, didn't realize so much of EU can afford electric vehicles. They are more expensive over here in the U.S. - especially compared to a decent used car. Is this a function of…

> wow, didn't realize so much of EU can afford electric vehicles. They are more expensive over here in the U.S. - especially compared to a decent used car.

I don't live in the EU, though. You need to move a bit further north and west.

And it's not that electric cars are cheaper here than in the US, rather other cars are taxed at +100% or so (more for "luxery" cars), while electric cars have had low to zero taxes.

Also, fuel has an extra tax of about $1/liter ($3.8/gallon) on top of the normal price (and 25% VAT even on that), meaning even before the current boom, fuel was typically priced around $1.5-$/l (around $5-$7/gallon), and has been approaching $2.5-$3/l (up to about $10/gallon) recently.

Another difference compared to the US is that we have about 25% fewer cars per capita here, despite having about 20% higher nominal GDP per capita than the US (purchasing power of households are lower than in the US, due to taxes and tariffs ). Partly because of car-hostile taxes (except for electric cars) and partly because other means of transportation are subsidized. More of the money is put into buses, trains and sidewalks and less into cars, roads and parking lots.

Re: Health insurers just published close to a trillion hospital prices

#538
post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the comment! I was meaning the former (under debt). The intention of my comments was to make clear that in that regard, Switzerland is not an efficient free market private insurance paradise. There are lots of nuances to it, and the private insurance system in fact brings in inefficiencies, namely, a very complex and costly cost itemization and enormous amounts of paperwork and stress for doctors, customer…

I'm not sure that your argument makes the case you think it does. The majority of Swiss health expenditure is in the private sector (which differentiates it from many other healthcare systems). Subsidies and municipal market participants do not change that fact. In every industry in the world, the government may play a participatory role within a greater market. We see this in the US in the food industry as well (foo…

Fortunately, life-threatening, chronic, bankruptcy-inducing, rare-and-disabling conditions represent a relatively small portion of the total healthcare spending (removing the most widespread chronic conditions). Those are also the least profitable things to insure (require a constant and sustained spending to maintain the knowledge/capability and fund research even if underutilized) if we want to ensure that any human can get reasonable access to those treatments regardless of their wealth. For this reason, countries like Switzerland or Germany maintain a "healthy" public (with lots of adjectives) healthcare system alongside.

Re: Health insurers just published close to a trillion hospital prices

#539
post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that your argument makes the case you think it does. The majority of Swiss health expenditure is in the private sector (which differentiates it from many other healthcare systems). Subsidies and municipal market participants do not change that fact. In every industry in the world, the government may play a participatory role within a greater market. We see this in the US in the food industry as well (foo…

Fortunately, life-threatening, chronic, bankruptcy-inducing, rare-and-disabling conditions represent a relatively small portion of the total healthcare spending (removing the most widespread chronic conditions). Those are also the least profitable things to insure (require a constant and sustained spending to maintain the knowledge/capability and fund research even if underutilized) if we want to ensure that any huma…

This is where you might be out of your element, it seems. Life-threatening / chronic / bankruptcy-inducing conditions do not represent a "relatively small" — at least in the US, 90% of health expenditure is on chronic health conditions (https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/costs/index.htm) — this includes heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes. I work in the industry and this comports with what I see on the ground as well.

In Switzerland (and also the Netherlands), the vast majority of this is covered by private health insurance, not via any sort of public health insurance. That's what sets Switzerland and the Netherlands apart from other peer developed countries, and they have results to show for it.

Regarding rare conditions, we agree — even the US has a public healthcare system alongside which covers rare conditions (e.g. end stage renal disease). US's Medicare Advantage system of private individual health insurance for senior citizens (with Original Medicare as a public option) is also a proven model with results to show for it. The CBO expects that by 2032, 61% of health insurance expenditure for senior citizens will be by the private sector (https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/medicare-advantage-...).

Re: Health insurers just published close to a trillion hospital prices

#540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think about how Kaiser has handled the whole thing? The insurance company employing the doctors and just paying them a standard salary seems to create all the right incentives.

My experience in talking to people with chronic conditions that aren’t easily treatable is that Kaiser’s model works great until anything that’s slightly out of the ordinary happens, and then it falls apart. If you’re a zebra (as in “when you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras”), their model is pretty horrible.

Have insurance split into two parts, the 95% cases and the rare and expensive?
Post reply on HN