News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by bduerst on Friday February 21, 2020 @04:16PM (#22386837)
I worked in the EMR software industry and have certifications that involve hospital & lab billing, among others. I've been on site with healthcare providers, and there are entire buildings full of people whose job it is just to code and scrub claims, and cover disputes/negotiations with private insurance providers.

Consumers do not see it because it's typically off-site from the main hospital care facilities, but believe me, the administrative savings potential is real.

Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by mochomocha on Friday February 21, 2020 @04:28PM (#22386975)
I once worked at a US biotech startup getting paid by insurers where we would build ML models just to reverse-engineer the inconsistencies of CPT coding & claim reimbursement by insurers & hospitals so we could get paid. Basically trying to automate "learn that Karen at insurer X processing claims wiht code Y from hospital Z usually decides to reimburse $XX". This whole idea of "free market is more efficient for healthcare" has to die. All the incentives are backwards. For example: insurers don't want efficient claim processing because that means less revenues for them.
Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by BurningFrog on Friday February 21, 2020 @05:54PM (#22387807)
> * This whole idea of "free market is more efficient for healthcare" has to die*

The current US healthcare system has very little to do with "free markets"!

Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by joe_the_user on Friday February 21, 2020 @06:26PM (#22388057)
"The current US healthcare system has very little to do with 'free markets'!"

Sure, the US health care system is certainly not governed by wide open competition, transparent pricing or similar things. But it certainly has something to do with the "free markets".

The system is basically "what you get when you realize you have to insure and regulate but you never, ever do it in a centralized rational way, 'cause that would be socialism - plus you never, ever separate an 'entrepreneur' from a real or potential stream profits". Which indeed, builds the worst of all possible systems, sending risks to the consumer and profits to the investor/rent-seekers.

And from here, we could go forward to actual socialized, state-run medicine as functions adequately in most industrialized economies or back to a "wild west" system, where costs are lower, treatment is often OK and the heroin runs in large rivers as due the fatal scams(as was the US' 19th century health care reality).

Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by maxerickson on Friday February 21, 2020 @07:32PM (#22388471)
Medicine changed so much after ~1880 (or maybe ~1900) that there's little to learn from the prior era.
Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by beat on Friday February 21, 2020 @04:58PM (#22387291)
Yes! Perverse incentives are what is making it like this. And the incentives cross boundaries - relationships between providers, insurers, regulators, legislators, and consumers. There's no single guilty party that we can blame and fix. (Since insurance companies are such a target for blame, I've started to say blaming insurance is like yelling at the cashier.)
Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by chrisdhoover on Friday February 21, 2020 @07:34PM (#22388492)
You realize the market is highly regulated and fully captured by the insurance companies? Not to mention the doctors guild that limits practitioners. The current system is not a free market. It is highly distorted and gamed.
Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by PeteLee-Us on Friday February 21, 2020 @04:47PM (#22387171)
About 10 years ago, I was a freelance consultant for clinics, hospitals and insurance companies (EMR, billing, claims, practice management, etc.). I've also been a volunteer EMT for about 20 years and have many friends who are clinicians.

The amount of administrative overhead is just absurd: a common and believable number is about 15%. This does NOT include the "shadow labor" that everyday people have to deal with, like being on hold with a billing department or insurance company, the merry-go-round of "prior authorization hell" for procedures or prescriptions, etc.

It's TERRIBLE that someone like me--conversant in business practices, ICD/CPT codes, and clinical practice in general--struggles to interpret a bill. It's literally worse than buying a car.

I can make lots of choices in life, but one of them isn't health care: if I need it--especially urgently--I'm not in a position to game out every scenario possible to minimize costs because the ecosystem is non-transparent and labyrinthine.

Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by anonsivalley652 on Friday February 21, 2020 @04:22PM (#22386899)
IIRC, coding is on the order of a million jobs across insurance, hospitals and doctor offices. Then there's all the other non-value-add activities of negotiating of prices, authorizing/denying treatment, billing and management. Oh and there's going through bankruptcy while you have cancer... I forgot that one.
Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by tptacek on Friday February 21, 2020 @05:59PM (#22387861)
Nobody is saying there aren't real administrative savings to be had, but the amount we spend on administrative costs is something close to an empirically observable fact, and you can do the mental exercise of taking any credible number and zeroing it out to see how big an impact it would have on overall health spending. It's not huge.

Which is to say that even in the most optimistic case, where single-payer forces everyone into a perfectly efficient system where nobody has to waste any time on coding or paper-shuffling and everything is perfectly streamlined, we still won't have meaningfully fixed the problem. The amounts we'd save would be a grocery-store-sale discount.

Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by laurencerowe on Friday February 21, 2020 @06:23PM (#22388027)
According to this study healthcare administration costs account for the bulk of the difference between US and Canada healthcare spending. 34% of 18% of US GDP (=6% GDP) vs 17% of 11.6% of Canada's GDP (=2% of GDP). https://www.healio.com/primary-care/practice-management/news...

Other studies looking at only hospital costs put it at 1.43% of GDP. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-articl...

Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by tptacek on Friday February 21, 2020 @06:43PM (#22388158)
That is a much higher estimate of admin overhead than other sources, covers both payer and provider administrative expenses, and implicitly attributes all provider administrative expenses to billing/coding.

But we don't have to litigate this in the context of the Lancet article. That article derives much higher savings from pharmaceutical price reductions than from administrative savings. We know with some certainty what percentage of overall spending comes from pharmaceuticals, and it is a low number.

Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by burnte on Saturday February 22, 2020 @12:08AM (#22389533)
> It's not huge.

It's massive. Healthcare is byzantine on purpose. It's opaque to patients so that providers can prevent shopping around and adjust charges per patient, and it's opaque to providers from insurers to help prevent having to pay claims.

Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by tptacek on Saturday February 22, 2020 @12:10AM (#22389541)
You're saying "it's massive" and, in, like absolute terms, sure, it is; everything we do is massive, we're a huge country. But in relative terms? No. It's not massive. It's a small fraction of our total costs. The total benefits we can reap from minimizing it? Not that great. Ambitious plans based on minimizing those costs? You should be skeptical. You should be asking: how are we going to solve this huge problem by zeroing in on such a small fraction of the total problem? Maybe the answer will surprise you, but you should start by needing to be surprised by the answer.
Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by burnte on Monday February 24, 2020 @05:25PM (#22409083)
Yes, in relative terms it's a large percentage. I work in this business, I see it every day. It's a HUGE chunk. Nationwide out of the 3.5 trillion we spend on healthcare, it's about 800 million.
Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by rayiner on Friday February 21, 2020 @04:32PM (#22387017)
Medicare billing isn’t any different, it’s just a different payer.
Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by bduerst on Friday February 21, 2020 @05:34PM (#22387638)
Medicare and Medicaid are different though.

The fee schedule and structure is much more defined, simpler, and easier to abide by. So much so that software can calculate it out of the box at the time of ordering. There isn't the negotiation and level of dispute handling that private insurance companies create in their profit-maximizing behavior.

Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by codegeek on Friday February 21, 2020 @05:01PM (#22387330)
Yes but at least, Govt. is not looking to make record profits.
Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by rayiner on Friday February 21, 2020 @05:10PM (#22387431)
No, but government has strong incentives to deny claims to control costs. At least at the state level, governments have gotten extremely aggressive about money collection. E.g. $50 administrative fee for not paying a $4.00 toll.
Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by codegeek on Friday February 21, 2020 @05:18PM (#22387494)
Personally, I would go for ANY system right now other than what we have. I am too pissed off at how our healthcare system is. Single Payer may or may not have the same issues but I am ready to take my chances. Status quo is not good enough for me.
Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by pw on Friday February 21, 2020 @05:33PM (#22387628)
What problems have you had with the current system?
Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by codegeek on Friday February 21, 2020 @06:30PM (#22388086)
Many problems.

- Every visit to a doctor is a game of cat and mouse. I am never sure what bill to expect and how many bills to expect.

- Price is always inflated due to the fact that insurance company has to make money on every visit to the doctor.

- Every visit requires a Claim. Claims get filed incorrectly. Fun and games trying to call a bunch of different "departments" trying to understand the claim and why am I being charged ?

- In network/out of network game. Ohh, I am sick and unconscious but I have to make sure that the person seeing me is "in network" so that I don't get a million dollar bill. Sorry, bad luck. While you were unconscious, we called a doctor who was "out of network" and not our problem. Have fun fighting wit the insurance company.

- Why does every visit require me to show insurance ? I just wanna talk to my damn doctor. Can I not just give you some money directly ?

- I visited the doctor. Doctor has to file a claim for $x while the insurance company only allows $y. So the doctor inflates the amount of initial claim knowing that they will be reduced anyway by the insurance company. Cat and mouse game continues and finally, poor me is left with a bill that I now have to figure out. Have I already paid enough (copay, deductible, out of pocket limit) ? Lucky me.

- My employer changes my insurance company. Oh, I have to redo the entire paperwork with al my doctors. Ok I did it. Oops the doctor office still filed a claim with my previous company. I am now fighting to get that sorted.

Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by Gibbon1 on Friday February 21, 2020 @07:22PM (#22388411)
Two other problematic things.

- Doctors have no idea how much anything costs.

- Pricing has nothing/little to do with the actual cost of providing a service.

Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by mochomocha on Friday February 21, 2020 @05:44PM (#22387724)
How is that different from insurer incentives to deny coverage or to ask crazy copays because insured people can only switch plans once a year and select from a tiny menu of options that their employers have negotiated on their behalf with an oligopolistic industry? And do you honestly prefer the shady debt collectors industry to the current government money collection mechanisms ?!?
Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by sjg007 on Friday February 21, 2020 @05:44PM (#22387725)
This is not a thing and if it ever became a thing it would be challenged in the courts. What is covered is all determined by the CMS and the medical associations. I would imagine some red states would try to do it. But to deny claims for cost control would be akin to the "experimental" treatment BS that insurance companies try to do. Insurers who deny for cost control reasons get hammered in the courts.

In fact medicare/medicaid have an even better mechanism to route out fraud. They can jail the medical provider for doing so.

Your last claim about fees for collecting tolls is unrelated.

Re:Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a ... by bduerst on Friday February 21, 2020 @06:32PM (#22388103)
>government has strong incentives to deny claims to control costs

Which is still less incentivization than what profit-maximizing insurance companies have.

The nice thing about the government is they are completely open and transparent with what they will pay and for what, so disputes are much less common.