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

The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

thecity.nyc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 175 posts

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#111

Post by jopsen »

jacobush wrote: post #103
jimbob45 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, you're mis-stating the problem. One should take an uber/friend to the hospital if the ailment is not time-sensitive or in need of ongoing treatment so that the ambulances are freed up for more critical patients. Ambulances should have some level of cost associated with them to dissuade using them for minor ailments. Should that level of cost be thousands and thousands of dollars? Probably not.

Shouldn’t dispatch triage if you need an ambulance or not?

In other countries they do that so aggressively that we have stroke victims dying, which an ambulance being dispatched.

On the other hand, given that triage failures are rare -- cost/benfit wise it's probably better.

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#112

Post by tialaramex »

______---______ wrote: post #74
CydeWeys wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, I went to the emergency room in a hospital with my girlfriend in London two years ago and it was free for her. We're Americans. Guess which country has better health outcomes.

>Guess which country has better health outcomes. The US, by all objective measures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_o... It's actually not uncommon for Brits to travel to America to pay for treatments not available on the national health or to avoid the often years-long waiting lists.

Here "Not uncommon" means "Very uncommon" because of course as this story illustrates US medicine is _ludicrously_ expensive and so the only reason you'd _travel_ there to get medical treatment is because that's the only place offering some obscure treatment you want.

Also is that list of really weird stats "all objective measures" ? No. It's just "Here are some numbers somebody seemingly randomly picked from a _vast_ array of statistics kept for the OECD".

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#113

Post by jfk13 »

triangleman wrote: post #89
NoblePublius wrote: post #76

This story is total fake news. The patient is a teacher with a Cadillac health insurance plan. She paid $75 co-pay. The $10,000 bill is an illusion printed by the insurance company to make her think that her insurance is actually valuable. No one was paid $10,000. The hospital was paid a secret negotiated rate much much much much lower than $10,000.

The insurer paid about $3000 according to the screenshot. The $10,000 is an illusion but I believe it's for tax purposes. If someone gets a $10k bill and the hospital eventually writes it off, they can write off the whole 10k.

So it's basically fraud, then. OK, nice to have that clear.

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#114

Post by mindslight »

aurelwu wrote: post #19

The statement from the hospital management boggles my mind: "In addition, there are different parts to a patient bill. One part is what the hospital charges the insurance company, one part is what the insurance company eventually pays [...]" I can't think of any other business transaction where someone just puts a giant number on a bill and then is happy if someone pays ~25% of it. Such companies would be shunned by…

> Is there any economic theory which explains how such odd of an system can emerge/survive?

It has nothing to do with economics, but rather with law. My first reaction upon seeing figures like $300 for ibuprofen or $750 for iodine (both elsewhere in this thread) is imagining I'd tell the hospital to fuck right off (ie respond with written notice disputing the validity of such charges), but clearly there are other details that pressure people into actually paying the nonsensical bullshit.

Regardless of single payer, private insurance, subsidies, out of pocket, etc, I do think much of healthcare could be solved if providers had to charge/publish uniform prices and couldn't post-facto bill, you know, like every other business. Imagine going to the grocery store, paying at the register, and then two months later receiving a bill in the mail for the cashier's time!

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#115

Post by bluntfang »

outworlder wrote: post #92
bluntfang wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to be fair, you paid a doctor to administer you a crutch and ibuprofen, I'm certain that's not the raw material cost.

I wish that was the case. If you sort the line items by cost, I would be surprised if labor was on top. Maybe for surgeries, but I doubt that. My insurance got billed 6k for a chest ultra-sound. They paid 4k. Hospital still wanted around 2k, had to negotiate and pay a little over 1k at the end. The line item for physician cost (billed separately) had 2 digits.

>If you sort the line items by cost..

Do you really think current health care is giving accurate line items on your bill?

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#116

Post by bluntfang »

ska wrote: post #66
bluntfang wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to be fair, you paid a doctor to administer you a crutch and ibuprofen, I'm certain that's not the raw material cost.

separate line items, typically

Do you really think current health care is giving accurate line items on your bill?

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#117

Post by jariel »

pjc50 wrote: post #97
jariel wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$300 seems low. 'The distance' is basically irrelevant. You're paying for a highly available, rapid response team to be prepared for almost any medical emergency, 24/7, literally almost at the press of a button. 'Preparedness' is expensive. What happened if the Ambulance broke down? Or a medic decided to say f-it and skipped a day. Or the phone didn't work. Or the critical piece of gear didn't work. Or ooops ran out…

As with so many things in healthcare, if it's such a great system, why isn't it used for the military? Medevac helicopters are really expensive, so why not make individual troops decide whether their case merits a few year's pay?

Misplaced sarcasm aside, the military makes very excessive use of basic triage.

Medevac is not called for 'asthma attacks' I can assure you.

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#118

Post by Ididntdothis »

solotronics wrote: post #5
thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #3

Definitely need to start cracking down on predatory hospital billing. 10K billed just for stepping into the ER Room without even getting tested is absolutely insane. AT point do we decide this is criminal and start taking actions against these guys? Normally, I would never be in favor of price ceilings but this is one industry that desperatly needs it.

I think once the dust has settled from COVID-19 the entire health system in America will be totally changed.

Nothing will change or it will get even more expensive. There is way too much money to be made with the current situation so doctors and hospitals will fight tooth and nail.

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#119

Post by jimbob45 »

jopsen wrote: post #106
jimbob45 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, you're mis-stating the problem. One should take an uber/friend to the hospital if the ailment is not time-sensitive or in need of ongoing treatment so that the ambulances are freed up for more critical patients. Ambulances should have some level of cost associated with them to dissuade using them for minor ailments. Should that level of cost be thousands and thousands of dollars? Probably not.

Don't need to be a cost... We could just have 911 send a taxi instead. I know in other countries ambulances are not always dispatched, because 911 operators decide it's not critical. Mostly this decision is correct, but from time to time a heart patient dies. (Maybe the alternative should be to send a taxi)

Is that a thing in other countries? Sounds like an excellent idea for a bill here.
Post reply on HN