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?
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?