Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One hospital charges $8,000 — another, $38,000

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: One hospital charges $8,000 — another, $38,000

#41

Post by cmelbye »

nostromo wrote: post #27

I wonder, since we strangely expect employers to provide healthcare insurance in the US, what if employers just decided to provided actual healthcare. Imagine taking all of the health premiums Google pays for its employees, and instead of feeding it in to a broken system, you build a world class health facility in Mountain View that's free to employees.

But then what happens when they need care when they're not near the company hospital? You'd need to set up company run hospitals all around the state and the country to manage the costs. And suddenly, you've reinvented Kaiser.

Re: One hospital charges $8,000 — another, $38,000

#43

Post by saber_taylor »

mitmads wrote: post #2

"a health system that can set prices with impunity because consumers rarely see them — and rarely shop for discounts"

Does this mean there should be an app so you can comparison shop while in an ambulance?

Hey no, I want to go to Hospital B.

Re: One hospital charges $8,000 — another, $38,000

#44

Post by digitalengineer »

I do not understand why there is no public list online with the basic costs of operations (including all the variables). With price transparency a lot of this unequal treatment and prices would surface. I understand there are a lot of variables, but not like it wouldn't be possible. (I understand a treatment at Hopkins would be more expensive than say at your local hospital, but at the very least it would be clear how much more expensive it actually is.

EDIT: One way to do it nationwide would be to ask people to send in their bills (anonymized).

Re: One hospital charges $8,000 — another, $38,000

#45

Post by reycharles »

cmelbye wrote: post #41
nostromo wrote: post #27

I wonder, since we strangely expect employers to provide healthcare insurance in the US, what if employers just decided to provided actual healthcare. Imagine taking all of the health premiums Google pays for its employees, and instead of feeding it in to a broken system, you build a world class health facility in Mountain View that's free to employees.

But then what happens when they need care when they're not near the company hospital? You'd need to set up company run hospitals all around the state and the country to manage the costs. And suddenly, you've reinvented Kaiser.

Kaiser Permanente (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente) is a »integrated managed care consortium« (health insurance, I guess). I did not know that.

Re: One hospital charges $8,000 — another, $38,000

#46

Post by dalke »

axefrog wrote: post #42

Why does the US tie health care to employment? Why is it not tied to the individual and thus transferrable between employers?

As I understand the history, during the wage freeze of WWII, companies used medical insurance as a form of compensation. This also helped the companies because the men left behind tended to be not as healthy as those who were conscripted.

Once you think of it as compensation, you can see why the benefits are tied to the employer. "Join us; we have good healthcare."

Re: One hospital charges $8,000 — another, $38,000

#47

Post by chao- »

digitalengineer wrote: post #44

I do not understand why there is no public list online with the basic costs of operations (including all the variables). With price transparency a lot of this unequal treatment and prices would surface. I understand there are a lot of variables, but not like it wouldn't be possible. (I understand a treatment at Hopkins would be more expensive than say at your local hospital, but at the very least it would be clear ho…

Operations are one type of unknown cost, but the problem extends to all parts of medical treatment. I know of at least one company (SnapHealth [1]) trying to solve this problem, from one small angle: tests and doc visits, as opposed to operations. But what I think you're asking for (and I would agree with) is a public list ala some regulatory mandate to publish costs of specific treatments?

[1] - https://www.snaphealth.com/

Re: One hospital charges $8,000 — another, $38,000

#48

Post by digitalengineer »

chao- wrote: post #47
digitalengineer wrote: post #44

I do not understand why there is no public list online with the basic costs of operations (including all the variables). With price transparency a lot of this unequal treatment and prices would surface. I understand there are a lot of variables, but not like it wouldn't be possible. (I understand a treatment at Hopkins would be more expensive than say at your local hospital, but at the very least it would be clear ho…

Operations are one type of unknown cost, but the problem extends to all parts of medical treatment. I know of at least one company (SnapHealth [1]) trying to solve this problem, from one small angle: tests and doc visits, as opposed to operations. But what I think you're asking for (and I would agree with) is a public list ala some regulatory mandate to publish costs of specific treatments? [1] - https://www.snapheal…

Yes. The minimum cost for a standard operation/procedure (without complications). X people doing the check-in, X-doctors for the procedure, X time in hospital bed to get well again, X time with checkups afterwards... You get the idea... EDIT: Forgot the link you send in. Looks good!

Re: One hospital charges $8,000 — another, $38,000

#49

Post by lucian1900 »

rdl wrote: post #21
ck2 wrote: post #7

Always tell them you are paying in cash. Take bill home and sumbit to insurance if you are lucky enough to have insurance. You just saved the system at least 75% of the cost.

The weird thing about having an HSA is that because I pay essentially 75% of a lot of things out of pocket (as long as I'm below my deductible), it often makes sense for me to negotiate and "pay cash" rather than running through my insurance. And yes, the doctors, pharmacies, etc. drop the prices a lot. One of the weird things going on right now is that Doxycycline (a common antibiotic) has gone up in price 10-20x in…

That still sounds like a terrible deal to me. In the UK, I pay around 10% of my salary for national health care and get free care for any problem I might have (and so does my girlfriend, of course). Medication is always exactly £7 (or similar, it might have changed slightly recently) regardless of what it's for.

Re: One hospital charges $8,000 — another, $38,000

#50

Post by cmircea »

roel_v wrote: post #28
cmircea wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or how about have national healthcare? Like every other decent country on this planet?

Describe "national healthcare". I see people who like to bitch about the US throwing this term around a lot, but what do you mean by it? One single, state-organized health care provider that gets funded 100% by other taxes or a flat-fee contribution that is the same for everybody? State-set price controls? Price controls on what - costs of procedure or insurance plan? What about coverage of those plans, determined by…

State organized and owned healthcare. You pay for it as a taxpayer and don't have to worry about going bankrupt because of a disease that can happen to anybody. For an example, the UK's NHS.

Private healthcare is still perfectly legal and fine, as is private health insurance, if you deem the state services are not suitable for you.

Hospitals should be helping people, not ripping them off >.<

Post reply on HN