News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack by loeg on Tuesday August 28, 2018 @03:50PM (#17862256)
> 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.

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.

Re:Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack by Marazan on Tuesday August 28, 2018 @04:50PM (#17862757)
Health care is not a regular market. You can't shop around for emergency care when your leg is severed or you are unconscious in a car accident.

Healthcare can and should be heavily regulated, its not like buying a hammer.

Re:Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack by loeg on Wednesday August 29, 2018 @08:27PM (#17873212)
Emergency care is not a great market to be a buyer in, but that does not change that market economics apply. And it is beside the point. The vast majority of healthcare is boring, predictable, non-emergency expenses that can be shopped around.

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).

Re:Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack by antisthenes on Tuesday August 28, 2018 @03:59PM (#17862334)
Trivially disproven by UK's health care system, which consistently ranks #1 in the world by outcomes and employs price caps for health care suppliers.

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?

Re:Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack by hathathat on Tuesday August 28, 2018 @05:31PM (#17863088)
> Trivially disproven by UK's health care system

Not trivially? [1]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/18/uk-cancer-su...

Re:Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack by loeg on Wednesday August 29, 2018 @08:35PM (#17873262)
NHS is a single-payer system, which is one of the solutions I proposed.

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.

Re:Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack by prirun on Wednesday August 29, 2018 @09:54AM (#17868214)
Are you suggesting that a sick person, recovering from an operation, be responsible for researching prices on the parts that were used in surgery? Most do not have the time or expertise for that, nor would anyone want to do it.
Re:Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack by antisthenes on Wednesday August 29, 2018 @01:01PM (#17869822)
Have your spouse/relative shop around for replacement while you recover. Or be destitute for 10 years after being bankrupted by medical bills. I know which one I'd prefer.

> 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?

Re:Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack by senorjazz on Tuesday August 28, 2018 @05:32PM (#17863099)
> Also, if it reduces costs for the end consumer, what's the harm?

Less profit for the company.