Because there is no such thing as THE price. The hospital or the doctor has a different price for each insurer, and of course the uninsured price which is necessarily much higher than the insurer prices.
In a predominantly insurance paid market, providers’ list prices are set excessively high because they are starting points to negotiate with insurance companies. The true prices that insurance companies pay are the results of such negotiations. Providers do not want to advertise their list prices for obvious reasons (people will think that they are too expensive), but may offer substantial discounts to self pay patients on an individual basis.
Basically, we are in a vicious cycle where medical care is expensive enough that all but the wealthiest want insurance to cover potentially large medical bills, but having most medical care be insurance paid reduces price transparency and market pressures against increasing prices.
I and my H and our kids would not have ever chosen to have chronic health issues, but we’ve all had them pretty much from toddlerhood, if not infancy. We still contribute to society and have done everything in our power to be as healthy as possible, but have additional chronic health conditions. We have been VERY fortunate to always have had excellent nationwide health coverage.
As a society, it’s more expensive to try to put huge fires out in the ER than putting out and trying to keep the little brush fires under control and staying out of ERs. People who don’t have good healthcare have a very difficult time being contributing members of society, since they have a hard time managing their conditions, which often CAN be properly managed with resources.
We , as a small business and also our family have been hurt by Obamacare. I don’t see any improvements that are going to help us as either. I just want an affordable price and low deductible like so may people who work for large employers or hold government jobs. Is that too much to ask for ?
This should not be pushed through in the same reckless manner that ACA was, throwing so many people under the bus
The ACA took over a year to pass. The time tables for these two bills are not comparable. That’s just an incorrect meme that needs to go away.
Anyway, to echo HImom, I am someone who right now is on a LOT of meds. But if I lose them? Or if I lose caps (lifetime or annual)? I’m screwed. We’re middle class (real middle class, not CC middle class) but the bulk of the income is mine. I would not be able to function without my meds. Full stop. I will be in the hospital because of extreme pain. And those thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars of hospital bills? Guess who those go to. Hint, not us who will now be in poverty.
And I will never be cured so this is a lifelong battle.
But right now, I own a house (so pay taxes). I work (so pay taxes).
I promise that I am much, MUCH cheaper being fully insured. I will not be able to afford the riders that will come back without the essential health benefits (cut under the newest incarnation of the bill) and I will fall back into poverty.
Transparency in medical prices wouldn’t do much. Most health costs are incurred by people who have exceeded their deductibles, or who are on Medicare or Medicaid. If I’m going in for a $30,000 surgery, or chemotherapy, or anything else significant, I have no interest in price shopping. I know how much I’ll pay: my out-of-pocket limit. So most health costs would not be subject to price comparison even if we had prices to compare.
Moreover, when given a big deductible and tools to compare prices, most people don’t do compare prices.
We need to control costs. Consumers price shopping is not a way to achieve that important goal. I realize that some here do in fact diligently compare prices when getting health care. You folks are atypical, however.
It is only apparently affordable with low deductible to many because their employers pay most of the cost (but their employers certainly do not like the bill!). Of course, that means that most people do not see the actual cost of medical care (proxied by the total medical insurance premiums, including those paid by their employers).
The high cost of US medical care (much higher than in other rich countries) is really what is making the political problem very hard to solve. People want high coverage low cost medical care, but to get that from the user’s point of view, it is or will be expensive for employers or the government (taxpayers). Of course, individuals who have to pay for their own medical care or insurance see the full costs. ACA slowed the cost inflation, but did not push it back down. AHCA is unlikely to help in this area.
I work with people who cycle in and out of the hospital because they have a tough time getting consistent good care to help them manage their chronic health conditions.
I have spoken with providers who are tired of trying to help folks with chronic health conditions back in the ER because they can’t afford their meds or doc appointments.
Making it tougher and more expensive for folks with chronic conditions to get coverage will increase ER visits and hospitalizations by folks who have few resources.
Ok, I’m going to calculate how much my five stents cost when I get home.
My friend who works in a medium sized city’s ER says on nights it’s stitching up the lacerations of the drunks, one after another. People who do not act responsibly. What to do about them?
Stitching up the lacerations of the drunks is a drop in the bucket compared to the big ticket items of healthcare such as cancer, heart disease, autism, pharmaceuticals, and chronic conditions such as diabetes and asthma. Cutting off the drunks who need stitches (and the “people who act irresponsibly”) isn’t going to make a bit of difference and won’t solve the problem.
I think it helps to not fixate on drunks, fat, lazy slouches, drug addicts, etc. There are very real good people who need care. And empathy. Look around you.
My kid’s friend works at a hospital that specializes in the addicts and their crises. Sure, it’s frustrating. But this will sweep the rug out from many we can’t “blame.”
Price transparency could be better and should be, even considering all the complications. It would be a start. And it wouldn’t have to be linked to any massive bill or repeal either. Are there any states yet that facilitate this?
Profit transparency for the insurance companies. Maybe they become more efficient, reduce their operating costs.
Our state organization will not allow us to discuss fees on our professional listserv at the risk of brushing up against antitrust law issues. It would be great to be able to be more transparent about fees- but we are directed against it.
Never miond whether or not the fish of antitrust law isolation is or is not being correctly interpreted. We simply are not permitted to discuss fees openly as it could possibly be misconstrued as price fixing by someone.
So it appears that now there is an ultimatum to have a vote on Friday or to shelve the whole matter. Am I reading this wrong? With all the things stripped away the House bill would be doomed in the Senate, so could it be over? For how long?
One (of many) problem with the government meddling in healthcare is that everytime the laws change virtually everyone has a vested financial interest, rather than a principled interest, in the outcome. No markets exist, just varying classes of welfare recipients clamoring for the lion’s share of subsidies as if standing on the moral high ground. Headlines talk about winners and losers as if we are not all losers with socialized, or at least massively regulated, healthcare.
As for “cutting off drunks needing stitches” having no influence on costs- that is completely false. Ask any coomunity hospital emergency room physician or any psychiatrist who takes hospital call whether substance abusers suck up massive amounts of useless resources and you will hear a unanimous and sadly enthusiastic “yes.” But I digress.
When Obamacare was passed he said it was not an entitlement. Now that others want to repeal it, everyone is an entitled welfare recipient it seems. Obamacare was also not a tax. Now that change is in the air we read amnestic headlines about the presumed tax “breaks” for the reviled rich. I would like the government to exert as much influence over healthcare as semiconductors.
The meddling can (and does) take many forms. Without it who regulates medical devices? Do you care if your pacemaker craps out after 18 months? I sure would. I also wouldn’t want people who are victims of a crime to be denied coverage or charged more because they are “a risk”. That is just vile and yet that is what health insurance companies did before laws were passed to prevent it.
Speak for yourself, WISdad23. If you want to call yourself a loser, go ahead. I’ll thank you not to call me one.
The bill will be voted on tomorrow. It’ll be interesting to see if it succeeds. It looks close.
The nonpartisan CBO issued its findings about the proposed modified bill–still cutting the same number of people off of insurance and saving less.