> If I can source the same stents for cheaper than the hospital bills me, they should be required to erase them from the bill and accept them as material replacement.
Meh. The only reason they inflate supply costs is because that's where insurance negotiations let them. Mandating supplies must be available at-cost to consumers is just a stupid cost-shifting game. Consumers shouldn't care in particular about the cost of supplies — overall cost is what matters.
Price-fixing in general does not really work. The difference is made up somewhere. Things that would actually reduce pricing stupidity and surprise bills are obvious things like: increased pricing transparency, consumer stake in reducing costs (HDHPs are a stab in this direction), and single payer.
Healthcare can and should be heavily regulated, its not like buying a hammer.
I agree that regulation makes sense, just not with the extremely specific proposal that medical devices be sold at cost (or whatever slightly higher unit cost is available to consumers).
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/press-release/2017/new-11-c...
> Mandating supplies must be available at-cost to consumers is just a stupid cost-shifting game.
That's not what I suggested in my post at all.
Also, if it reduces costs for the end consumer, what's the harm? Why should consumers subsidize hospitals with cutthroat billing departments who make up numbers out of thin air?
Not trivially? [1]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/18/uk-cancer-su...
Yes, mandating supplies be sold at-cost is exactly what you proposed:
> Hospitals should be legally mandated to accept replacement of materials in lieu of payment.
> If I can source the same stents for cheaper than the hospital bills me, they should be required to erase them from the bill and accept them as material replacement.
And to address:
> Also, if it reduces costs for the end consumer, what's the harm?
The problem is in the condition. At the end of the day, ineffective regulation increases costs for the consumer.
> Most do not have the time or expertise for that, nor would anyone want to do it.
Is that a joke? You can find most of those things with a 30 second Google search. I thought this was a forum with technically apt people?
Less profit for the company.
This is actually good advice. It shocked me when I realised it. But it’s good advice.
They ended up dropping the bill altogether as insurance had already paid them.
I know the US system is different to what I grew up with (UK NHS), but I have had similar "treatment" when ill as a tourist in 3rd world countries: couple of pills / drip.
I understand that the difference of systems in regards to extensive care, but a couple of pills and a drip - why on earth is such basic care just not free to all?
I mean, I know this seems like just a snarky political comment. But it's just the honest answer. Our federal government is simply completely dysfunctional right now, incapable of solving anything.
For what it's worth, "Medicare for All" has been polling increasingly higher recently, due to more Americans being basically ready to give up on the current private system entirely.
Just now? It’s seemed dysfunctional to me since I was capable of understanding government, circa 15 years ago. My parents felt the same way 30 years ago, and their parents felt the same way 50 years ago.
The supply chain has to be verifiable as genuine goods from the factory to the hospital floor. Trying to verify the authenticity of patient-supplied replacements would be a nightmare.
I wasn't actually seriously suggesting that patients be required to source the item physically, then physically deliver it to the hospital in person.
My situations varied, but when I had no insurance and was living off of savings, I found a generic "hardship" form and explained my situation to them - they waived 80% of the fee without much resistance. This is compared to the laughable discount of 2% they offered me on the spot if I paid in cash (at the moment of the visit)
In other situations, I'd imagine it's more a question of persistence, but I'd venture to say you can knock off at least 50% on _any_ hospital bill.
I recently bought a house, and my credit was 800+, so I don't think it does in any appreciable way.
That wasn't the gist of my post though. I was advocating more to resist the bullshit and to legislate something that allows the customer to replace materials instead of paying a hugely marked up item.
Same concept would be applicable, for example, for a car mechanic shop. Just because they billed me $600 for brake pads doesn't mean that they've actually provided me with a 10x markup of value on having bought brake pads myself for $60 - at some point this needs to be treated as "usury" (I don't know if there's a word for exorbitant markup on a regular good).
Another thing I would add - don't put your social security number on medical forms. I've never seen it enforced and there's no medical reason for them to have it.
Also, people like you who force hospitals to chase you down to pay a bill are part of the reason why it's so expensive in the first place.
If I can source the same stents for cheaper than the hospital bills me, they should be required to erase them from the bill and accept them as material replacement.
It's not as if medical supplies are unavailable to the end consumer.
https://www.esutures.com/product/0-in-date/41-boston-scienti... Here are the stents available for under $1000.
When I had a broken finger and was uninsured, I was charged ~$40 for a finger splint that costs $7 at Walgreens (yeah, the very basic one made out of aluminum and blue foam).
Also, a word of advice - never ever pay what you were sent from the hospital right away. I personally throw most medical bills in the trash and wait until they call me, then negotiate it down to a fraction of what was billed, offering to pay in cash.