Live data from Hacker News

The anatomy of a ripoff

nydailynews.com

151–160 of 189 posts

Re: The anatomy of a ripoff

#151
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why high deductible insurance offers the best hope for cost control. Too bad it becomes illegal in 2014.

I think it only delays the inevitable and ends up making things worse. If people don't have the money for surgery (and really how many of us can pull ou $5000, right no). They'll delay it. Delay it too long and that $4000 surgery becomes a $50000 intensive care, emergency operation.

This misses the point of high-deductable insurance. It's not simply the idea that you should share more of the cost. The idea is, rather:

* Low-deductable insurance is inherently more expensive.

* The difference in premiums between low- and high- deductible insurance gradually funds your HSA.

* When you're young and you start your HSA, you also happen to be actuarially less likely to need the money going into your HSA, so it grows to cover your deductible (or, the savings gradually displaces whatever you deposited to start your HSA; whatever).

In the presumed common case, your deductible is fully funded by your HSA which is itself fully funded by the difference in premiums over a few years. That's all money that would simply have been remitted to your insurer if you had a low-deductible plan. The high-deductible plan leaves you better off.

(There's also the more meta point that health insurance exists to keep you from being bankrupted by e.g. appendicitis, and not as a cost-saving plan for routine care.)

Re: The anatomy of a ripoff

#152
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it only delays the inevitable and ends up making things worse. If people don't have the money for surgery (and really how many of us can pull ou $5000, right no). They'll delay it. Delay it too long and that $4000 surgery becomes a $50000 intensive care, emergency operation.

Usually, you should always get an insurance deductible as high as you can afford to pay out of pocket. If you can't afford to pay the deductible out of pocket, you should look for a lower one. So a $5000 deductible isn't for everyone, but it would be good if the people who could afford it would start to use it and bring some price-sensitivity into the system.

Most young people would (a) be better served in the immediacy by the highest possible deductible and (b) once established in one, grow into middle-aged people who have set aside that deductible just by maintaining their HSA.

Converting to high-deductible is a problem if you're living at or above your means and are approaching middle age. But presumably regardless of your socioeconomic status, if you're just starting out in the market, given the choice between high- and low-, you're better served with high-.

Re: The anatomy of a ripoff

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...when you measure things like life expectancy, Britons are as healthy as Americans. That gives you an idea of how much money is going down the tubes due to administrative inefficiency. It's hardly clear the money is going down the tubes due to administrative inefficiency. It might just be spent on unnecessary medicine, and costs might be higher in the US. According to one fairly decent source, administrative ineffi…

Well, yeah, if you ignore all the studies and only read libertarian blogs, then it's hardly clear. Administration accounts for 31% of healthcare costs in the U.S., and 16% in Canada, for example.

The Incidental Economist is the premier healthcare policy blog as far as I can tell. I've been reading it for years, and it is anything but libertarian. They actually have several posts on why competition based schemes will not reduce posts - pretty much the exact opposite opinion of a libertarian.

In fact they have two series of posts (one being what Yummyfajitas posted) that are basically required reading for anyone interested in discussing the healthcare problems in the US. I would also recommend their 10 part series on healthcare quality.

Re: The anatomy of a ripoff

#154
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hang on, so medicare told the hospitals and insurance companies to run their businesses that way? The transaction described in the article was entirely between private business entities. I get that they set their prices in a way that distorts the market to some extent but it seems that that distortion is far less than what the really-smart-guys-in-suits have been able to manage all by themselves. I understand the imp…

I'll be honest. I don't get why hospitals continue to play the game. If I were running the place, I'd just pull out of Medicare. It seems that they're afraid of the millions of dollars of lost revenue, without considering the greater sum of expenses that they'd free up.

Unsurprisingly, it's complicated.

For example, at one hospital where my family member works as a therapist: The hospital receives federal funding for area X, so the clinic area Y must accept Medicare. in Area Y, medicare pays far less than private insurance per hour of therapy, doesn't reimburse for patient no-shows, but doesn't allow the clinic to drop no-showing patients. So the clinic section of the hospital ends up paying staff hourly wages to do nothing some of the time, and is barely treading water the rest of the time.

Now, there's overhead, so it's better to have a full clinic with Medicare underpaying than a half-full clinic with no Medicare, but it's still a ripoff: private insurance / private pay is paying more for the same service than Medicare. If private insurers could and would demand the same terms as Medicare, the clinic would die.

Finally, maybe Medicare is still a good deal, due to that Area X funding? Maybe, but that's in a totally separate area, distorting the economics of both areas X and Y. It leads to political BS where the fancy X ward swimming in money and building a palace (like http://www.seattlechildrens.org/, have you seen that lobby?), so they pressure clinic Y to beg for donations from their own staff to stay afloat.

Re: The anatomy of a ripoff

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I think you'll find that billing like the kind you see in the US doesn't happen in Germany. The US spends nearly twice as much per capita than Germany for a comparable level of service[1]; this is hard to judge but life expectancy is a reasonable proxy, people in Germany on average live about the same. The UK with near mandatory, see below, universal healthcare the cost of per capita is lower still [1 ibid].…

life expectancy is a reasonable proxy I disagree. The USA differs significantly from Germany, both in cultural aspects and genetic/racial makeup. Different lifestyles contribute significantly to life expectancy differences, as does heredity.

That is not actually important in the overall picture of healthcare spending - http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/what-makes-the-u...

Re: The anatomy of a ripoff

#156
post #142

I'm in the US. I just recently switched to a high-deductible plan last year with an HSA account. My deductible is $5000 and my monthly premium is $98 (for an individual plan -- self employed here). I have and plan to always contribute the maximum amount to my HSA each year. My plan covers 2 checkup visits a year, and everything else I pay out of pocket up until I hit my deductible. I really think this is the way insu…

Just curious, what's the maximum you can contribute? If it's $5k, that works out to about $416/month, so you're total monthly cost is $514.

The maximum you can contribute is somewhat inflation-pegged. As of this year, it's $3050 for an individual plan and $6150 for a family plan (plus an extra $1000 per person involved over the age of 55).

Note that the contribution is pre-tax, so if you're at the 25% marginal federal rate and contribute $3000 you have to compare that to getting at most ~$2020 in after-tax money: HSA contributions are not subject to FICA (7.65%) or federal income tax (25% on the margin per above assumption). They're not subject to state income taxes either; those can range from 0% to 12% depending on state and income level.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that this is a health _savings_ account. Your contribution stays in the account if you're not spending it on actual medical care; it doesn't disappear at year end. Money in the HSA can be invested if desired (though it's probably a good idea to leave at least the deductible amount in liquid funds). Interest, dividends, and capital gains on the money are not taxed. When you reach retirement age, you can withdraw the money for any reason, not just medical care.

So basically an HSA is just like a traditional IRA in terms of tax treatment, but with the added ability to make early withdrawals to pay for medical care. The only drawback is that you can only open one if you have a high-deductible plan (defined as at least $1200 for an individual and $2400 for a family, as of this year). So you're basically gambling that the tax savings and possible future growth of the money, plus what you save on premiums, will be higher than the deductible.

Going back to our case of a single individual at the 25% marginal rate, with $100 premiums for the high-deductible plan and $300 premiums for the low-deductible plan, the difference in premiums is $2400. If you're depositing those $3000, your tax savings are about $1000. So you'd have to spend more than $3600/year on average on medical care to lose out. For most young-and-healthy folks, spending on medical care is likely to be less than this. Note that the 25% bracket starts at a taxable income of about $34,500, so figure a salary of at most $50,000. If you're earning more than that and are single, chances are an HSA is a good deal for you.

Re: The anatomy of a ripoff

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually, you should always get an insurance deductible as high as you can afford to pay out of pocket. If you can't afford to pay the deductible out of pocket, you should look for a lower one. So a $5000 deductible isn't for everyone, but it would be good if the people who could afford it would start to use it and bring some price-sensitivity into the system.

Most young people would (a) be better served in the immediacy by the highest possible deductible and (b) once established in one, grow into middle-aged people who have set aside that deductible just by maintaining their HSA. Converting to high-deductible is a problem if you're living at or above your means and are approaching middle age. But presumably regardless of your socioeconomic status, if you're just starting…

What's this about the HSA? I thought HSAs expire every year.

Re: The anatomy of a ripoff

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple hits meaning more surgeries per period that the savings can be refilled. Like, say, if you get into a major accident requiring multiple surgeries, or get a condition that requires multiple surgeries or extensive treatment. People can get seriously ill, not just "average" sick.

The $5000 deductible is per year. Your typical decent high-deductible plan will have a $5000 deductible and 100% coverage thereafter until year end. The worst-case scenario with such a plan is that you end up with a chronic condition that requires extensive treatment every year, at which point it will cost you $5000 per year. Oh, and that's typically a per-family deductible, not per-person. Just to put that in perspe…

"that's typically a per-family deductible"

A little better...

"HSAs that automatically get money put into them every year for those who can't afford to do so "

That's encouraging too, although I bet it doesn't refill at the same rate as topping it up yourself?

I still think it's the wrong thing to do, though. I can appreciate the market pressure idea, but there are other ways to lower prices charged for procedures, and this way still involves people actually worrying about whether they have enough money for health care. Do Americans realize just how much mental angst they cause themselves actually devoting this mental energy to worrying about whether they will have enough money to make themselves not sick, if they get sick? All this pride or whatever at choosing clever HSA solutions or having an awesome work health care policy is simply relief at not having to worry about health care bills. It's not a value add, you're simply avoiding the horror of a double whammy: getting very sick and going bankrupt (or seeing your lifestyle change drastically due to budget concerns). It's the awesome opportunity to get completely fucked.

But if this HSA/whatever is some kind of compromise towards progress... well, hope it works.

Re: The anatomy of a ripoff

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most young people would (a) be better served in the immediacy by the highest possible deductible and (b) once established in one, grow into middle-aged people who have set aside that deductible just by maintaining their HSA. Converting to high-deductible is a problem if you're living at or above your means and are approaching middle age. But presumably regardless of your socioeconomic status, if you're just starting…

What's this about the HSA? I thought HSAs expire every year.

No, that's an FSA. (Amusingly, someone voted this down; on HN, this is apparently a matter of opinion).

Re: The anatomy of a ripoff

#160
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be honest. I don't get why hospitals continue to play the game. If I were running the place, I'd just pull out of Medicare. It seems that they're afraid of the millions of dollars of lost revenue, without considering the greater sum of expenses that they'd free up.

I sincerely doubt that the bean-counters at hospital are losing a ton of money on medicare but are too confused by the large 'revenue' figure to subtract a larger 'expenses' figure and realize they're making a loss. As a matter of fact, I can't recall ever reading an op/ed or anything by a hospital administrator complaining that they're being fleeced by medicare and losing a bunch of money on it. But I've seen a bill…

I've worked as the IT guy in a hospital, and have talked to our "finance guy", and he says the same thing--outpatient surgeries and childbirths pay for Medicare (in)patients and the ER.

And yes, there is inefficiency unrelated to Medicare, and yes, I've seen the anecdote about how doctors who own an MRI machine refer patients to get MRIs six times more frequently.

But Medicare underpaying, alongside what I remember hearing was a "bad payor mix" from ER patients, hurts.

If you're truly curious about how healthcare works, follow this blog http://histalk2.com/ and get a flavor for what's concerning IT people (which oftentimes is money).

Post reply on HN