News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Common Blood Test Can Cost $11 or Almost $1k by dsfyu404ed on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @06:10AM (#19795798)
>So in practice, the financial benefits seem to accrue with low-care patients, not low-cost-of-service patients, meaning it doesn't affect the system in the right way.

Why is "use less, pay less" a bad thing?

Re:A Common Blood Test Can Cost $11 or Almost $1k by dmayle on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @06:33AM (#19795891)
At first glance, it's not a bad thing, but it does nothing to solve the pricing problem that America's healthcare system has.

Going a bit deeper, however, it will most likely increase health care costs over time. This is because it splits the population into two separate risk pools (low-risk low-use, and high-risk high-use).

To save myself the time of explaining it in full, just compare it to the current state of the credit card market. When Discover pioneered the idea of splitting the risk pool (by offering cash back rewards to low risk clients), then it created upwards pressure on credit card fees (because the general risk pools slowly became high-risk pools, meaning that existing risk fees didn't cover the necessary spread). The traditional cards now started charging more to merchants, which left room for larger rewards for the low-risk pool in a vicious cycle.