[HN Gopher] How much health insurers pay for almost everything i... ___________________________________________________________________ How much health insurers pay for almost everything is about to go public Author : nojito Score : 449 points Date : 2022-07-01 16:58 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (khn.org) (TXT) w3m dump (khn.org) | rdxm wrote: | AceJohnny2 wrote: | Anecdote: I recently had my yearly glasses update. Cost was $188 | to me + $20 of insurance copay, so the glasses provider charged | $208 for the glasses. | | That's not _too_ bad, so I asked how much it would be to replace | /update the lenses on my old frames, entirely at my charge. | | It would've been $450. Just for the lenses. | | I passed. I find it scandalous how much they can charge when | _just before_ they were perfectly happy to accept less than half | that amount. | | Instead I got another pair on EyeBuyDirect for $80. | | It's not just the insurers themselves, but the whole system. Burn | it all down. | zdragnar wrote: | They likely had lenses already available for the frames they | had in stock, or were frequently making batches of them. | | OTOH the frames you already owned may be out of style, so they | would have needed to grind a totally custom pair of lenses, | just for you. | [deleted] | lostcolony wrote: | Nah. Outside of the vision cartel you can get replacement | lenses for any pair of frames < $100, with all the various | coatings and special shit for low hundreds. Likewise, using | insurance to just replace the lenses, if a plan includes | that, is often $50 or less. It's just shopping at the vision | cartel without insurance = huge sticker price. | sib wrote: | Any tips for how to stay "outside the vision cartel"? (In | the US, if that is relevant...) | atrus wrote: | zenni optical. I mostly use contacts, but I have several | 'backup' glasses. You can get decent looks frame for like | $11 shipped. | pastor_williams wrote: | This doesn't work as an explanation, lenses are always cut to | the frame. | | My brother in law owned a lens cutting shop and they have | boxes filled with lenses ground to all sorts of prescriptions | that are circular plugs 3 or 4 inches in diameter. When the | order comes in they use the pupil measurements and the frames | to cut the lenses for the prescription down to fit into the | frame. | | I don't know how well I explained that but you can watch this | video to see exactly how it works: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCjGNUPO0WU | sib wrote: | Thanks for this explanation - makes complete sense but | never thought about it! | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | I've been buying glasses from the cheap Chinese websites for | ages now. There's some utility to being able to take your time | in a show room, but the online venders are so cheap it only | took one or two tries for me to find frames I like reliably. | And they're $60 instead of $600 even with some premium | coatings/features. | karaterobot wrote: | > It's not just the insurers themselves, but the whole system. | Burn it all down. | | Painstakingly, methodically, improve it, taking care at each | step that you're making it better. :) | uoaei wrote: | This is exactly how to corner yourself into a local optimum | that balances how much people are pissed off, rather than how | much people see benefits. | quarantaseih wrote: | The chaos of "nothing" is very destructive. That | realization is at core of why Im a conservative. | karaterobot wrote: | I'm not sure I agree. If it did happen, that's another | problem to be fixed. | | I do know that the way to design complicated, successful | systems is to start with simple, successful systems and | build on them: starting to design a complicated system from | scratch seems like a recipe for much bigger problems, and | that's what you'd have to do after "burning it all down". | That's even assuming that "build something new" was the | second step implied after "burn it all down", though you'll | note that was not stated in the original comment. | | I think we can agree that "burn it all down, and that's it" | is the worst possible solution. | nazka wrote: | Do you think this can have med to long term effect on revenues | earnings and so stocks? | alanfriedman wrote: | For anyone looking to download the data, here are a few links: | | Empire Blue (Anthem): https://www.empireblue.com/machine- | readable-file/search/ | | United Healthcare: https://transparency-in-coverage.uhc.com/ | | Aetna (Seems like the right page, but I don't see any download | links -- possibly because they haven't been posted yet): | https://health1.aetna.com/app/public/#/one/insurerCode=AETNA... | | Search keywords: | https://www.google.com/search?q=machine+readable+files+trans... | nope96 wrote: | Blue Cross https://www.bcbsil.com/member/policy-forms/machine- | readable-... | | So are there programs I can use to parse this? It looks like a | json file with links to more gziped json files... | smm11 wrote: | Very soon we'll have Congressional hearings after oil companies | see profits climb 7000 percent over last year, and they'll look | sad and do nothing. | | I expect much the same from health insurance companies. | pkaye wrote: | I'd be curious how their profits compare to pre covid profits | given then many oil companies were losing a lot during covid | due to sharp drop in demand. | boston_clone wrote: | Thankfully, that data is public. [0] | | And it's still damning. Billions of dollars of profit were | made, every single quarter. I have absolutely no sympathy for | these companies, especially when they also likely received | huge sums of cash from the federal government for this "sharp | drop in demand". | | >Over 10 percent of the more than 7,000 oil, gas, and | petrochemical companies that received PPP funds totaling | between $3 billion and $6 billion reported no jobs retained | as a result of the loan. The CEOs of Exxon and Chevron got | raises in 2020, while Exxon announced that it is suspending | the company's contribution to the US employee retirement | savings plan beginning in October and Chevron is cutting | 6,700 workers around the globe [1] | | 0. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/XOM/exxon/gross- | pr... | | 1. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/bailout-billions- | dollars-f... | benreesman wrote: | This would be great news in a world where healthcare company | revenue (which never quite trickles all the way down to retail | shareholders) wasn't just a one-way wratchet. | | More opaque: costs more. More transparent: costs more. | | Want a better deal? Choose better parents pleb. | chevman wrote: | Wait till you find out how much it actually costs | doctors/providers to render some of these services! | | Do you like 90% margins? Doctors sure do! :) | throwaway12245 wrote: | So do lawyers. | pishpash wrote: | Lawyers don't have the ability to kill you. | willcipriano wrote: | A prosecutor could have you killed. | [deleted] | nojito wrote: | Net margins != gross margins | programmertote wrote: | Spouse of a third year resident here. My wife has volunteered | at several primary care (i.e. generic doctor) clinics in | Manhattan and nearby area (Queens, Astoria, Brooklyn and even | in Boundbrook, NJ). These are all owned by the doctors. She | worked in all kinds of operations of a clinic from billing, | sending prescription, taking patient history, etc. | | Back-of-the-napkin calculation based on my wife's experience -- | if you are a primary care (generic) doctor in a highly | populated area and you see ~40 patients a day and each patient | pays $100/visit. | | $100 * 40 patients * 22 days per month of work * 12 months = | $1056000 (about $1 million USD) | | We are using $100/patient/visit and that's being very | conservative. Most of these doctors would encourage the | staff/volunteers who do the billing to put as many relevant | billing codes as possible in the system (e.g., if someone comes | in with a cough, they'll try to bill for anything related to | cough symptom although they already knew it's just for seasonal | allergy). This is necessary also because a lot (not all) of the | patients are on medicare/aid and the reimbursement from | medicare/aid is not as good as the ones from the private | insurance companies. The cost of the labor is mostly just one | assistant or at most two for ~$20-$30/hour max. Not sure about | the insurance cost (but we assume that it would cost | ~$20-$30K/year for malpractice insurance?) and renting the | clinic (some docs do own the clinic). All in all, we believe | that having your own practice can net you a lot more than what | you'd make by working as an attending/hospitalist at a hospital | (on average, hospitalists make between $250K-$300K/year, which | is still commendable). | | But if you live in a rural area, which tend to have smaller | population density, then you are probably better off working | for a hospital because as a hospitalist, you can make close or | a little more than $300K/year as a general doctor. My wife | knows a couple of doctors in Palmdale, CA, who work as | hospitalists in two hospitals (6 days a week alternating | between two hospitals; the days start at around 9am and ends | around 3-4pm). They rake in ~$600K/year from salaries (not | including bonuses). A friend of mine just completed his | residency and got an offer from a hospital near Dyersburg | (Tennessee) for $300K/year salary with $40K sign-on bonus. The | specialists earn more of course: | https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/how-much-do-doctors-make/. A | cardiologist friend of mine told me that he got an offer from a | hospital in Montana that pays $800K+/year. | | Just wanted to share what I know about how much the doctors can | make in the United States. | kstrauser wrote: | There's no way a single assistant could handle 40 patients | per day. At that volume, you'd have at least 2 assistants. | | Malpractice insurance can be _way_ the hell more expensive | than that: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/small- | business/how-much-i... | | Rent will probably be another $60K per year. | | The receptionist will want to be paid, as will the biller. If | you're lucky, one of them will have time to be the designated | person to call and argue with the insurance companies every | time they deny a payment because it was a waning gibbous moon | that day, but realistically, if you have providers seeing 40 | patients per day, that's another full time person. | | The EMR system will be quite a few thousand dollars up front, | plus another several thousand per year. | | You'll have to provide health insurance for all of your | employees, and worker's comp, and an office liability policy. | | And finally, _great_ insurance (from the billing physicians | POV) will pay about 40% of the allowed amount. Really crappy | insurance, like Medicaid, is basically a write-off. BTW, | Medicare has decent reimbursement. Not great, but several | _times_ more than Medicaid will pay. | | In my experience as being the one who's written the checks | for medical practices in a couple of different states over | the last 2 decades, you are grossly overestimating revenue | and underestimating expenses. | cddotdotslash wrote: | > Most of these doctors would encourage the staff/volunteers | who do the billing to put as many relevant billing codes as | possible in the system | | Is there any way to fight back against this? I've personally | experienced getting a bill after a routine office visit with | tons of charges I didn't recognize and procedures they | absolutely did not perform. In some cases, it equates to $0 | after my insurance pays, but in others it results in quite a | bit of extra expenses (especially since I'm on a HDHP). | kstrauser wrote: | As the spouse of a doctor, this made me giggle. If her practice | had 90% margins, my life would be a lot different than it is. | Her _actual_ net margin, as in what she brings home after | paying all the bills, is closer to 15%. | InefficientRed wrote: | A private practice owned by the MDs reporting relatively low | net margins is meaningless without knowing what the MDs are | taking out as income. | kstrauser wrote: | Her practice, as are most, is an S Corp. In other words, | the net income _is_ her take-home income. | | Put another way, the rent, employee pay, supplies, | malpractice insurance, etc. etc. etc. add up to about 85% | of her gross revenue. That 15% difference is how much she | personally makes. | rr888 wrote: | Doctors and Surgeons in America are incredibly highly paid. | People love hating insurance and drug companies but the cost of | people is driving much of the price. | ageitgey wrote: | I'm one of the co-founders of Turquoise Health, mentioned in the | article here. We've been downloading and parsing this data all | day. It's a really big deal in the industry that the prices that | insurance companies pay doctors are now being shared publicly. It | will have all sorts of positive impacts over time, hopefully | making rate negotiations more consistent and fair between | different insurance plans. Right now, 10x differences in prices | paid for the same healthcare service from the same doctor between | insurance plans is not uncommon. | jerry1979 wrote: | How do you account for case-based charges? | antisthenes wrote: | Are you guys hiring? | baby wrote: | Another proof that more transparency decreases corruption and | improves efficiency? | BurningFrog wrote: | Once it's been shown to work it may be proof. | | The track record of healthcare reforms intended to cut costs | is rather abysmal. | epgui wrote: | Does it really need to be proved? | | I'd argue that it's a mathematical/logical truth in | principle, and that the only thing that requires proof is | whether this particular implementation is successful at | what it aims to do. | tomrod wrote: | Very cool work! | | The article mentions that yall are working on hospital data. Is | insurer data beginning to roll in? | codegeek wrote: | I appreciate what you all are doing. We need people to try and | really fix our Healthcare Industry. However, I do have a | question. Are you trying to get rid of Insurance mafia at all | for at least some things like basic preventive care etc because | I am sure that drives costs up a lot if Insurance companies are | always between a doctor and a patient. I really hope something | can be done where I can just go to a doctor/hospital, ask how | much and pay for it out of pocket instead of crazy premiums and | all the other BS we have to go through everytime. | sinab wrote: | Where are health providers hosting these data? Could you give | an example? Thank you. | WFHRenaissance wrote: | What do you serve to gain from scraping all of this | information? | dugmartin wrote: | I was guessing it was this bit at the bottom of their landing | page: | | > Are you a transparent provider or payer? > There is a | market for transparency. Let patients find you by claiming > | your provider page and listing your services. It only takes | 10 minutes. | | But following through that link says it is a free program. | ageitgey wrote: | We build products that help healthcare providers and | insurance companies broker contracts between themselves | based on actual market information instead of guessing at | prices. The goal is to drive down prices by making the | market more efficient. | | Part of that is assuming that prices will be public, so we | encourage them to claim their own page and take control of | the rates listed there. | jjoonathan wrote: | The information on their landing page was immediately | relevant to me | | https://turquoise.health/ | | I hope they have a good business plan and manage to stick | around! | ageitgey wrote: | Thanks! So far, so good. We don't sell anything to | consumers. Our products are aimed at the healthcare | industry which lets us post information for consumers for | free and we have pretty good product-market fit. | | Obligatory "if anyone is interested in joining a fast | growing, series A company doing impactful work, hit up our | careers page!" | atlasunshrugged wrote: | Interesting, I'm curious since you're in the industry, | why do you think medical tourism has never taken off in a | big way in the U.S.? I feel like I saw more people | willing to go to Poland or Ukraine for things like dental | work when I lived in Europe than people in the U.S. | willing to go to Mexico or some other destination. | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | Not the person you asked. | | I want my medical providers to be local to me so they're | liable to my local community. I also want to keep my | organs and have insurance cover the costs. | ageitgey wrote: | The US is really, really large and many people living | there have never left it. There's also a belief that US | healthcare is the gold standard (which is probably true | at the very high end, but not necessarily on average). | | In other words, it's a hard sell to convince a factory | worker to travel 5-10 hours on a plane to a place they | have no familiarity with to get what they believe to be | inferior treatment. They might not even have a passport. | | This is much less of an issue in Europe where countries | are tiny and almost everyone travels between them on a | regular basis. | | Also, medical tourism is mostly limited to what the | industry calls Shoppable Services - outpatient treatments | that are not emergent/not life threatening. There is a | bit of a cottage industry in Mexico for some services, | like bariatric surgery for obesity or dental work, but it | isn't a huge volume. The really expensive stuff in the US | is emergency treatment which you can't shop for anyway. | | All that said, I think the interest in buying | prescriptions from overseas has never been higher. | rootusrootus wrote: | Anecdotally, most of the people in my circle of friends | and family are perfectly satisfied with what we get | locally. If you have adequate insurance and no major | medical issues, you don't save much by flying down to | Mexico. I do have some extended family that have gone to | Mexico for treatment, however, mostly of the dental | variety. But it was major reconstruction, so it was worth | the effort. | | I do remember reading a story a couple years back where | an insurance company paid for their customer to fly to | Mexico, flew down a US orthopedic surgeon, and paid him | pretty well for his services. The cost of the flights, | surgeon, and medical facility in Mexico were | significantly less than it would cost them in the US, so | everybody won except the US hospital. As I recall, the | hospital in Mexico was collocated with a resort, so it | was a nice place to recuperate as well. | | Not sure how common that really is, though, stories like | that make the news for a reason. | | Edit: Pretty sure this is the story I was thinking about: | https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2019/08/13/cancun | wildrhythms wrote: | How does the healthcare industry use this data typically? | ageitgey wrote: | Our industry-focused products are based on knowing how much | every service costs at every healthcare provider. It's the | underpinning of our products. | | We also post a lot of the rates publicly in a consumer- | friendly searchable format, but we don't charge any money for | that. But this data will let us greatly expand the scope of | that free service. | treeman79 wrote: | A few times I've seen a 10x price decrease when I asked to pay | cash before. | | Sometimes the co-pay alone is more then cash for procedure. | | Weekly injections and MRIs is the worst offenders I've seen. | elromulous wrote: | Could this backfire - similarly to how publicly traded | companies' CEOs disclosing their pay caused their pay to | skyrocket? | huitzitziltzin wrote: | This is a good question and the answer is absolutely yes. | | It could raise prices. Consumers have _some_ incentive to | care how much they are spending on health care, but they aren | 't generally the claimant on savings they realize for their | insurance plans. (Obviously the incentives for uninsured or | self-insured patients (to the extent that there's anyone in | the latter category) are quite different, but those | populations are small.) | | On the other hand, every hospital has a strong, strong | incentive to care _a lot_ about how much their competitors | are getting for the same procedures. (Much more than | consumers, for example.) | | It's possible that these disclosures lead to prices falling | as hospitals seek to undercut each other. However, most US | hospital markets feature a small number of competing hospital | systems in an oligopoly. The price-cutting pressures in such | markets are much, much weaker. There is a "mutually assured | destruction" aspect to price competition in such markets | which may keep prices from falling. | | The latter incentive can raise prices too. IF you know your | competitors across town are getting an extra $5,000 for a | knee replacement and you know that the two of you are the | only game in town for hospitals, you may raise your prices | rather than lowering them. | | On balance I think this is the right policy, in part because | I want this data myself as a researcher. But it is not | unambiguous that this will lead to price reductions. | | Source: am a health economist. | marricks wrote: | Can you support that claim? I couldn't find when CEO pay went | public but it sounds very likely like one of those causes | were correlation definitely doesn't imply causation. | elromulous wrote: | This[1] Wikipedia article talks about it some, and links to | this[2] paper. | | [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation_i | n_th... | | [2]https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.2202/1535-167X | .120... | | Edit: adding an additional paper on the topic https://www.p | rinceton.edu/~amas/papers/CEODisclosureMandate.... | bawolff wrote: | It makes sense to me. Transparency benefits the party that | is more free to go elsewhere. Lots of companies, fewer good | ceos, means that the ceos can leverage this better than the | company can. | | To put another way - at work, if you knew how much every | employee made at work, it would probably be helpful in | salary negotiations. Dont see why it would be different for | ceos | zeruch wrote: | All CEO pay for public companies is exposed in the 10Ks. | | What I suspect the person was referring to is the change | where compensation became more tied to equity valuation. | lesuorac wrote: | CEO pay wasn't always public and the compensation is only | mostly equity because it has a tax advantage [1]. | | [1]: https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness- | briefing-bo... | akira2501 wrote: | That's an odd way to look at it, as a "backfire." | | We're introducing more information into the market. If some | prices went up as a result, isn't that an indication that the | lack of pricing information was being used to artificially | depress prices? | | If so.. this isn't a "backfire" so much as an "obvious and | necessary correction?" | burnished wrote: | Medical care is not the kind of good that you can just say | 'oh the market will correct it', because most of the | assumptions you make about 'the market' don't apply to | essential services. | dwaltrip wrote: | Based off some of the other comments, here is the idea I'm | picking up on: | | If a particular market isn't that competitive and has | oligopolistic aspects, more transparency may increase the | "effectiveness" of the oligopoly. Instead of hospitals that | were charging more lowering prices to compete, we could see | hospitals that were charging less raises prices because | they know the competitive pressures are weak and they don't | want to leave money on the table. | | Seems plausible to me, depending on how oligopolistic most | hospital markets are. | snarf21 wrote: | We really need to move to reference based pricing. We can cut | so much waste out of the current system including brokers. | Reference based pricing also get rids of the loopholes for | things like anesthesiologists being "out of network" at a | hospital/facility that is "in network". It also gets rid of the | situation where if you offer cash you get one price but if you | submit for the same code, it could be 3x or 10x or even more. | whatshisface wrote: | What's reference-based pricing? | antisthenes wrote: | It's basically price-controls. | | A regulatory body looks at how much something "should" cost | based on its history of reimbursement and the cost of its | inputs and then sets a cap of say, cost + 20%. | | The problem is having an independent body that is free of | influence of health insurance companies and hospitals, both | of which have perverse incentives to continue profiteering. | db48x wrote: | Not to mention the fact that it will eventually cause a | supply shortage. | snarf21 wrote: | The sibling is right but in this case we'd probably do | something like Medicare + 20%, which is actually close to | what most insurers do for _some_ of the codes already. It | just removes the cost of negotiation, brokers, out of | network, etc. and actually lets you know the cost up front | for most appointments. We also need to get rid of service | levels for most appointments. It is just used as an excuse | to up charge by having patients fill out pointless | paperwork. We also need to reimagine our service provider | models. We have already move to CMAs to take blood | pressure, etc. We also need to move to PA or LPN instead of | a Dr for most cases. Ear infections, colds, flus, etc. are | a majority of family appointments and can be handled by | lower levels. The Dr can then review cases and deal with | the more complicated cases where her expertise is most | needed. | arcticbull wrote: | Or we can have one network every doctor is in, and the state | pays for everything. All doctors are independent contractors | to the state. Everything is paid for. There's one price for | everything. Everyone is covered. All this garbage just | disappears. | | Then there's one nice fee schedule like this, with all the | prices on it, but it doesn't even matter, unless you're a | physician doing your billing. [1] | | [edit] As you can see from the PDF, a dermatology consult | (A025) is $72CAD. | | [1] https://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ohip/sob/phy | sse... | FollowingTheDao wrote: | Sorry, but the only thing that will help is Medicare for all. | We need to get rid of insurance companies completely. | nullfield wrote: | Where is the - if it exists - list of locations where different | entities have published their machine-readable files? | logicalmonster wrote: | Question to somebody who might know as this seems like a relevant | thread to ask in. | | If a person wants to pay directly in cash/credit-card for | services rendered by a doctor, do doctors' agreements with | insurance companies generally prevent them from offering a cash | discount to cash-paying patiences lower than the insurance | company negotiated price? | pishpash wrote: | Sometimes they aren't allowed to offer a cash option at all, if | you've told them you have insurance. | jjeaff wrote: | I have come across quite a few doctors that will not treat | you at all if you don't have insurance. | yardie wrote: | Yes, not only do they offer it but some insurers will give you | credit card gift cards to help pay for treatment. That is how | dysfunctional our medical system is at this moment. Providers | will lock insurers at one rate, negotiate a different rate for | self-insured that could be lower/higher. And insurers get wind | of this and try to sneak pay the self rate. | coredog64 wrote: | If a doctor accepts Medicare patients, that sets a price floor | for cash. Legally, if you accept Medicare money, you cannot | offer anyone a better price than you charge Medicare. | dimal wrote: | I'm not a fan of Trump, but I have to admit, the executive order | [0] that forced this disclosure looks fantastic, really | fantastic. But if I'm reading it right, it seems like it's just | an order to _enforce_ requirements ObamaCare that were intended | to increase transparency.[1] Obama and Trump actually | accomplished something _together_! | | [0] | https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/17/2017-22... | | [1] | https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/11/12/2020-24... | yieldcrv wrote: | most of your friends/everyone are independents and they're just | lying to you so they didn't get blocked yet, most of the | population can see the chronology plainly without the partisan | disclaimers | dontcare007 wrote: | Thanks again President Trump! | kstrauser wrote: | I'll admit, this is one thing, perhaps literally the only | thing, he did that I think is excellent for individual | Americans. | nicodjimenez wrote: | Yep. That, and space force, and cheap energy, and | renegotiating trade agreements, and not starting any new | wars. | BurningFrog wrote: | This is rapidly becoming a Monty Python sketch :) | sodality2 wrote: | "Cheap energy" is not the boon you think it is. You have to | consider other factors - deregulating the food industry and | getting rid of the FDA would save millions of taxpayer's | money, would lower prices of the supply chain and let | consumers pay significantly less for food, yet would have | drastic side effects. Cheap energy that requires | deregulation, more alarming and precarious climate effects, | etc might not be a net positive. | | Likewise, "not starting any new wars" can be perceived as | bowing to foreign nations by anyone who wants to frame it | negatively, or vice versa as an amazing success for | diplomacy. | kstrauser wrote: | Thank you for saying so. Flooding the market with cheap, | low-quality crude would drop the price of gasoline, but | it'd be horrid for the environment. | nicodjimenez wrote: | If you really think the war on fossil fuels in the West | is in the citizen's best interests, you are delusional. | | In the West everything is a scam. Our health system is a | scam, the military industrial complex is a scam, our | education system is a scam, our currency is a scam, our | media is a scam, the president is a scam. What makes you | think that ANYTHING going on in the West ISN'T a scam? | Izikiel43 wrote: | >> West | | I think you meant USA | nicodjimenez wrote: | USA especially but also Western Europe. | willcipriano wrote: | Go to the gas station and tell the struggling families | how good for the environment it is that they have to | choose between essentials and going to work. | kstrauser wrote: | Yeah, that sucks. We've gotten ourselves into a bad | situation where we're still dependent on a horrible form | of energy for common needs. That doesn't change the fact | that every gallon of gas we burn screws up the entire | planet just a little bit more. | willcipriano wrote: | If anyone made a mess it isn't the single mom trying to | feed her kids, she shouldn't be the one who is punished. | | How about huge tax on international travel? On the order | of say 500%, make it totally unaffordable. A trip to | Europe produces far more carbon than a few years worth of | trips to the grocery store and isn't at all necessary. | kstrauser wrote: | I mean, that seems like peak Big Government Overreach, | but to each their own. Alternatively, people could quit | buying wholly inappropriate vehicles. If your job | requires you to carry lots of cargo around, then a pickup | makes a lot of sense. If you drive a spotless Ram 2500 | that never leaves the suburb, then I don't want to hear a | damn thing about the price of gasoline. | | And even if you personally don't drive an idiotically | wasteful vehicle, a huge portion of Americans do, and | their gas guzzlers drive up demand for the same fuel that | you and I want to purchase, causing its price to | skyrocket. | | We don't all need to be driving something like a Nissan | Versa, but a _lot_ of people whose real requirements | would be met perfectly by something like that are driving | Yukons and whining about gas prices. | willcipriano wrote: | Those cars produce less carbon than your vacation halfway | across the globe and aren't used purely for recreational | purposes. | | It seems like carbon really isn't your issue here. | kstrauser wrote: | I haven't gone on a distant vacation in many years, so | not I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. But yes, a | suburban-dwelling, daily commuter Expedition is | absolutely a recreational choice, and an irresponsible | one at that. | willcipriano wrote: | > But yes, a suburban-dwelling, daily commuter Expedition | is absolutely a recreational choice, and an irresponsible | one at that. | | Just like air travel. If making one unaffordable is | positive, why not the other? | 0des wrote: | > "not starting any new wars" can be perceived as bowing | to foreign nations | | This is an interesting take on peace in the middle east. | sodality2 wrote: | Hey, I agree with you there, but my point is that any | aspect of politics can (and will) be reframed by both | sides to support their preconceived beliefs. | | I've edited my comment to speak in a more neutral | political tone. | nicodjimenez wrote: | The "both sides" idea is an illusion, the two sides | disagree on everything but on one very important point | there is no disagreement... | sodality2 wrote: | I'm not sure what you're referring to. I said that in any | political situation, people tend to posit the evidence to | support their own beliefs. It sounds like you're | referring to false balance [0]. But that's not what I'm | doing at all - I'm not posing any political beliefs as | equally valid, I'm stating that everyone will change the | parameters of an argument in order to solidify their | beliefs. | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance | nicodjimenez wrote: | <laughing emoji /> | [deleted] | 0des wrote: | I appreciated the right to trying life saving treatment even | if it isn't officially approved or completed trials yet. | karmanyaahm wrote: | IPv6 mandate too | InefficientRed wrote: | That has nothing on Al Gore, who invented the internet! And | in much the same way as any other president doing something | popular and uncontroversial: it would've happened almost no | matter who was at the top. | | (Point is, most legislation and XOs are largely bipartisan. | Policy is driven much more by the machinations of hundreds | of thousands of faceless/nameless actors than by the guy at | the top. In both good ways and bad. The same is true in | companies. The genius of leaders is mostly in their | salesmanship.) | tacocataco wrote: | > The genius of leaders is mostly in their salesmanship. | | The topic of a couple Adam Curtis's documentaries IIRC. | | Obama's first presidential campaign won marketing awards: | https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jun/29/barack- | obama-c... | imwillofficial wrote: | I hope this becomes the norm all over | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Can anyone provide any hints on the search keywords to find this | data at a given insurer's website? | Olreich wrote: | > "What we're learning from the hospital data is that insurers | are really bad at negotiating" | | Do the insurers have any incentive to negotiate well? Since their | customers are not very price-sensitive (since they aren't | marketing directly to patients or doctors), I would imagine they | don't have a huge incentive to do anything but apply a markup to | whatever prices the hospital tells them it costs. | lotsofpulp wrote: | If insurers' customers were not price sensitive, then they | would have higher profit margins than 5%. | throwaway12245 wrote: | Aren't all customers "price sensitive" ? | lotsofpulp wrote: | Mostly true, I should have clarified "customers who have a | choice to buy an alternative". | jjoonathan wrote: | The accusation here isn't that they are skimming a | disproportionate amount, it's that they aren't doing their | job, which is to put downwards pressure on provider prices. | lotsofpulp wrote: | The fact that there are at least 5 large insurers competing | nationwide and all have 5% or less profit margins means | there is lots of competition, and if they are not providing | the best prices, their customers will go elsewhere. | | See pharmacy forums as an example for all the pharmacists | complaining about how independent pharmacies are so tough | to operate due to ever smaller payments from insurance | companies for the past 10 years. | uoaei wrote: | I would like to understand better your definition of | "competing" because accidental cartels happen all the | time in highly regulated and captured markets such as | healthcare. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Nobody chooses to earns a 5% profit margin if they can | earn 6%. Low single digits is objectively a low profit | margin, for any business, and so must indicate that | competitors exist Who prevent charging higher prices to | increase the profit margins. | jjoonathan wrote: | > if they are not providing the best prices, their | customers will go elsewhere | | Nope. Not if they can inject enough noise into the | comparison process to hide the differences. There's a | reason they threw so much money at getting | bronze/silver/gold standards killed. They knew it was | critical to avoid being squeezed. | | > pharmacists complaining | | Pharmacists are a tiny part of the bloat picture and it's | always easier to put the screws to smaller players. Come | back when drugs and hospital stays stop costing twice as | much as the rest of the developed world, or stop growing | 10% y/y (on top of regular inflation) and then I'll | believe that insurance companies are doing their | negotiating job. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > There's a reason they threw so much money at getting | bronze/silver/gold standards killed. | | I am not aware of these standards being killed. I select | a Gold HSA plan every year. | | https://www.healthcare.gov/choose-a-plan/plans- | categories/ | | > Come back when drugs and hospital stays stop costing | twice as much as the rest of the developed world, and | then I'll believe that insurance companies are doing | their negotiating job. | | > Come back when drugs and hospital stays stop costing | twice as much as the rest of the developed world, and | then I'll believe that insurance companies are doing | their negotiating job. | | How are they supposed to negotiate if there is only 1 | hospital in an area or a drug company owns the patent to | a drug so they are the only seller? The insurance company | is mandated to cover emergency care at the hospital and | pay whatever price for the medicine if it has sufficient | efficacy data, per the laws. | | When there are generic drugs available, insurance does | pay less for those drugs. | jjoonathan wrote: | I could be wrong or I could be remembering that they were | _effectively_ killed by inserting a key loophole. I 'll | have to dig up my notes and probably do some research to | figure that out. | | My point about performance -- 2x, 10%y/y -- stands. | lotsofpulp wrote: | There is no point to comparing US expenses to other | countries where drug manufacturers and hospitals and | doctors are not allowed to negotiate, and have to accept | what the government gives them. | | What would you do if you were the insurer and there was | one hospital in an area or 1 patented medicine and the | government forced you to cover it? | jjoonathan wrote: | No point? | | The point is that we should be doing what they are doing. | When you're in a hole, stop digging. | | > WWYD | | I would get rid of private insurers and have the NHS | negotiate prices. | lotsofpulp wrote: | This discussion is about insurers negotiating pricing, | not about politicians enacting taxpayer funded | healthcare. | jjoonathan wrote: | Nice try. | | It's a discussion about private insurers systematically | sucking at their notional purpose. Which they absolutely | do. They need to be replaced. | | "They're doing as well as could be expected" might be an | exoneration of a company, but it's an indictment of the | system. | vkou wrote: | No, it means that Obamacare is working as written[1]. | Insurer profit margins are set to the legally permitted | ((medical bills) * 15%) - operating costs. | | If insurers want to make more money, they can either make | medical bills more expensive, or reduce their own | operating costs. Reducing the cost of medical bills does | _not_ increase the amount of money they make, unless it | means they are capturing market share from a competitor. | | The problem is that it's nearly-impossible to capture | market share. Which insurer do I have? The one that work | provides. Did I have any choice in it? No. Did I choose | my workplace based on the insurer bundled with it? No. | Will my workplace ever switch their insurer provider of | choice? Almost certainly 'no'. | | How do you capture market share, when all of your | customers, and all of your competitors' customers are | captives? | | [1] Whether or not it was written well is another | question. | mypalmike wrote: | I agree with many of your points. But in terms of | employers switching plans, I've experienced such changes | several times as an employee of different companies. It's | not particularly inconvenient to a business to switch | insurers, though it certainly can be to the employees. | lotsofpulp wrote: | It does if it results in them being able to sell policies | at lower premiums than their competitors and hence earn | more customers. | | > Will my workplace ever switch their insurer provider of | choice? Almost certainly 'no'. | | Why not? I am an employer and we evaluate the cost of | health insurance every year. It is a huge expense, so why | would we not shop around? | vkou wrote: | > It is a huge expense, so why would we not shop around? | | Because switching to a different provider can be a huge | pain in the ass to your employees, whose multi-year | treatments/doctors/etc may suddenly become out of | network? | | And it's probably not worth doing unless the cost delta | is truly staggering? | lotsofpulp wrote: | That goes for switching any almost vendor. But it does | give insurers an incentive to not runaway with pricing. | xboxnolifes wrote: | In the US, isn't there regulations that effectively cap their | profit margins? Since they have no incentive to increase | their margin through negotiation, their only incentive would | be to lower their costs below competition. | pishpash wrote: | Wouldn't their incentive be the opposite? To get more total | dollars so there is more profit at the capped margin. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Medical Loss Ratio: | | https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/medical-loss-ratio-mlr | | It says 80%/85% of premiums have to go back out as payments | for claims. | | > Since they have no incentive to increase their margin | through negotiation, | | I do not see why this would be true. The less an insurance | company pays for healthcare, the lower the premiums or can | offer and win more business. | 31835843 wrote: | This would be true if there were a reasonable amount of | market understanding by customers and the friction to | switching were low. Neither are the case. Most of the | time, it takes a qualifying life event or open enrollment | (once a year) to switch. And then, understanding the | trade offs between plans, which are difficult to | understand on a good day, is another barrier. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Then why are insurance company profit margins so low? Why | wouldn't they just jack up premiums irrelevant to their | competitors and ignore negotiating pricing and see | increasing margins? | | Low profit margins/multiple sellers indicates a highly | competitive field, which means the businesses must be | doing something stay in business. | jjoonathan wrote: | Yeah, but "something" could be advertising, kickbacks, | cherry picking, lemon dropping, making comparison | difficult, selectively optimizing visible metrics while | balancing with dirtbag fine print, etc etc. | | Competition != Productive Competition | lotsofpulp wrote: | Then the competition who does not do that crap would | offer lower premiums and steal business. Just like any | other business that wasted money cannot compete with a | business that does not waste money. | 31835843 wrote: | And this is only true in a markets that are easy to | enter. Starting an insurance company isn't easy. | | Why are profit margins only 5%? Could be many reasons, | including collusion. Insurance companies have teams of | lawyers whose job it is to navigate existing regulation, | lobby for new ones and to push for ones that hurt | competition. | | Given how shady and complex the entire industry is, we | don't really have a reason to believe that 5% is an | accurate number. | owisd wrote: | There's no universal %margin on turnover that applies across | all sectors that tells you whether a market is efficient or | not. If I supply you widgets for $1000/ea and take a $50 | management fee that we assume is fair for the work involved, | then if there's a shortage of widget materials that pushes | the price up to $10000/ea, it's no extra work for me so the | fair management fee is still $50. If I charge $500 to keep | the % the same I'm adding no extra value for that extra $450. | | Building contractors are an example of an industry that runs | on razor thin profit margins in % turnover terms, because all | they're doing is passing on the cost of labour and materials | from their suppliers and subcontractors onto their clients | and just making their profit adding value in a thin | management layer. Which sounds a lot more analogous to | insurers than industries that earn 5% profit on their | turnover. | MrFantastic wrote: | Private Healthcare is the Classic Agency Problem. | hedora wrote: | All they really need to care about is the average amount paid. | | Ten $100 brain surgeries and $2,000,000 for 1000 routine | neurological screenings is a fine outcome. (Or would be, if not | for price transparency) | gnopgnip wrote: | Health insurance customers are price sensitive | jjoonathan wrote: | Well, if they can negotiate a particular incident down then | they pay less for it, but in the long run big picture you're | exactly right. So long as they can inject noise into the plan | shopping channel and so long as they aren't doing worse than | their competitors by that noise margin, they'll do fine. Which | in practice means that they just pass along the costs. | nonrandomstring wrote: | "Doctors hate this simple trick to reduce <illness>." | | That's the strange spam message I could never understand. | | Surely doctors would be delighted at any method to improve | health? | | So I always assumed the "trick" to be quackery with dangerous | side effects. After all, why else would "doctors hate it"? | | Eventually I realised these messages are exclusively US American, | the only place on the planet where doctors could plausibly resent | people improving their health at the expense of their profits (or | at least that's the implication that seems to rest on an | entrenched cultural cynicism). | | Am I totally wrong? | kube-system wrote: | You're overcomplicating your analysis. The purpose of ads is to | generate attention. The message is effective for Americans for | the same way that it is effective for you. It leaves the reader | with multiple questions, which is more effective than an | alternative phrasing which may leave someone with one or zero | questions. Those ads are not posted by medical professionals, | they're posted by scam operations. | | Healthcare in the US uses specialized labor just like any other | developed nation. US doctors are not concerned with financial | operations, they're focused on clinical duties. For any typical | hospital, the people who do anything with finance or billing | are not even in the same building as doctors. | vorpalhex wrote: | You are totally wrong. | | Quackery exists all over the EU and other socialized systems. | The idea that you can fix issues by drinking water or vinegar | instead of going through Chemo or surgery has always been an | easy sell to the gullible. | nonrandomstring wrote: | So you're saying my initial interpretation is the correct | one? "Doctors hate this" because it's fake and leads people | to false hope and ineffective outcomes? But I'm still | confused. Other than as an arresting "attention grab" (as | another commenter says) why would someone advertise a product | by denigrating it, even semi-ironically? | fritztastic wrote: | It's not that doctors resent people improving their health, | it's that people are wary of their healthcare services existing | in a for-profit system- these types of scams play to the | paranoia and fear that people associate with medical | establishments selling treatments rather than establishing | preventative health. Basically it boils down to the sentiment | people generally have that doctors benefit from sick people | because they make money from people being sick. | | Anecdotally, I remember growing up in Brazil and we were taught | in school about human anatomy and all sorts of health issues | and how nutrition, immunization, proper hygeine, etc. helped | prevent being sick... as well as home remedies for simple | illness. But here in the US people seem to seek some authority | to provide solutions, and these scam pseudo-medical ads play to | this and fill the gap where state medicine and folk knowledge | would otherwise be. | fritztastic wrote: | Simply put, it's a trust issue. | | I think in many places people establish a relationship with | their primary doctor, where the Dr knows them and their | medical history in detail. Growing up, my family doctor had | treated my family for generations and was familiar with me as | a person even though I did not have many appointments. | | But since I've moved to America most of my Dr. appointments | are focused on the issue I am having as opposed to treating | me for an issue. The Dr skims through my medical history to | see if the issue relates to anything relevant. The | appointments are hurried and impersonal. | | There is a business aspect to medicine in America- it's | business more than it is healthcare, really. I have often | felt more like I am going in for maintenance like a machine | than going in to speak to someone who uses their knowledge to | help me be the healthiest I can be. | | I know a lot of people here who also go to doctors and have | their issues dismissed, minimized, or attributed to stress- | and leave without any sense of what to do, besides grab a | prescription or see a specialist. There is a helplessness I | perceive in many people, and some end up with many | prescriptions for different things and later find out there | is an underlying issue that was overlooked all along. There | are many many stories of people whose problems may not have | persisted so long if their medical providers had communicated | better- which perhaps most of them have no incentive to do, | because this is time consuming and therefore loses them | time/money. Whereas in a system where private doctors have to | conpete with state provided healthcare, my anecdotal belief, | they have an incentive to do better. | | Anyway, having an impersonal system leaves people feeling | like they need to look for solutions themselves, looking for | hope at a cheaper price than a stack of copays and possibly | having to deal with waiting long times for referrals. This is | also true of anyone anywhere feeling desperate and looking | for some control in regards to their health problems. So this | opens the door to a market of people offering miracle cures. | Just happens to be there is a lot of distrust baked into the | reality that healthcare in America prioritizes profit over | people. | ryandrake wrote: | Yea, it appeals to the same brain matter that conspiracy | theorists appeal to: "The mainstream is wrong, and only we | few lucky people know the real truth! <Authority figures> are | lying to you with their awful _complexity_ and _nuance_ so | they can take your money, and hate our truth because it is | simple and doesn't let them take your money." | rglover wrote: | Not at all. The solution in America is often to medicate, not | change your own behavior or diet. If you watch regular | television here (with commercials), every other commercial is | for some new pill you need to take. When you go to a doctor's | office, it's not uncommon to see a "drug rep" roll in a | suitcase with samples of new drugs they want doctors to push | (which inevitably comes with financial incentives). | | Being a doctor is a business just like any other. And just like | any other business, some operate ethically while others don't. | jcranmer wrote: | Those messages come from the "health supplement" industry, | which is basically a segment of the health industry that the | FDA is prohibited by law from regulating. And it entirely feeds | on consumer cynicism towards the health industry, despite the | fact that the major players in "health supplements" are guilty | of everything the health industry is accused of being. | nonrandomstring wrote: | What you're saying is a revalation to me. I did not realise | the US medical science was split along economic/regulatory | lines. Surely this is doing everyone a disservice? | CogitoCogito wrote: | > That's the strange spam message I could never understand. | | Well the message is likely untrue so maybe it's best not to try | to understand it. | nonrandomstring wrote: | > Well the message is likely untrue so maybe it's best not to | try to understand it. | | I hear you saying - don't give credence to idiots. | | But at the same time that's a strange philosophy as I've | found some of the most interesting truths come from | understanding the lies people tell, and why. | CoastalCoder wrote: | I'm curious if this is a first step towards hospitals being | required to charge the same prices to everyone, insured or | otherwise. | 31835843 wrote: | This seems so sensible to me that I'm curious why the hell it | wouldn't work. | treis wrote: | Which price and who determines it? | manquer wrote: | Hospital is free to determine their prices, but they cannot | give steep discounts to one channel of sales over other. | They have to be consistent. | | Healthcare pricing should be based on cost+plus models for | the hospitals rather than on value driven approach you see | every else in any sales. | | We are not questioning their costs whatever they maybe, if | the costs logically remain roughly same no matter how a | particular patient came to them, then there is no reason | for price to be different depending on type/ nature of | insurance or lack thereof. | CoastalCoder wrote: | I would think that hospitals could create price schedules | similarly to how other businesses do. | | Although I imagine this gets really messy when dealing with | Medicare and with the mandate to treat everyone regardless | of their ability to pay. I'd expect those arrangements | would need to change to make this work. | | I feel a bit silly pontificating about this. Hopefully | someone who really understands the topic will weigh in. | [deleted] | stevebmark wrote: | This happened for hospitals too, and not much has changed. | Cryptic billing codes will make this data hard to understand. | daenz wrote: | This is regulation everybody should be able to get behind. How | are these markets supposed to function efficiently with healthy | competition if critical information like this is hidden away? | uoaei wrote: | Libertarians ret-conned Adam Smith's definition of "free | market" to mean "complete absence of regulation". And they use | this appeal to authority (as well as the naturalistic | inevitabilism that originates in evo-psych) as a cudgel to push | for the permission of exploitative practices. We are becoming | more and more aware as a society of the effects of this | campaign, which is heartening, but reactionaries stand at arms | to defend their ideological convictions to the death. | | For the record, what Adam Smith actually meant by "free" was | "everyone is free to participate -- barriers to participation | are controlled for and mitigated to the best ability". This | requires regulation to discourage and ideally eliminate | monopolistic behavior. | zip1234 wrote: | Those libertarians who have famously been in charge of the | United States since it's founding and got the US into the | current health care cost mess? | tomrod wrote: | Nah, not to be political but the parent commenter probably | means the retconning folks in the GOP who claim | libertarianism as a political ideology but are often | anything but. | | Left libertarianism is summed up as: live and let live. | Very different. | sytelus wrote: | I don't think this will lhave much impact on health care cost. | The cost is high because it is paid through employer and | therefore it is hidden from you. If the law was to force | employers disclose lost wages for employees due to health car, | that would have bigger impact. The real impact will come if | employers turn off the medical insurence coverage entirely and | everyone has to cut the checks themselves. | IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: | Employer-provided healthcare is a solution for the problem | that health insurance, unless it is mandatory, will tend to | attract a self-selected group of expensive customers and, in | turn, make health insurance (even more) unattractive for | healthy people. | pastor_bob wrote: | The free market produces the most efficient outcome | tzs wrote: | It produces a maximally efficient outcome (by some | definitions of efficient) if various requirements hold about | the market, the goods in the market, and the market | participants. | | Almost all real markets deviate from those requirements. | Sometimes these deviations aren't enough to prevent the | market from producing close to maximally efficient outcomes, | and sometimes they are enough to make the market produce | outcomes nowhere efficient. | | This is one of the reasons why an economics degree requires | coursework beyond Economics 101. :-) Economics 101 is the | equivalent of Physics 101 where we mostly ignore things like | air resistance and friction or Electronics 101 where we | ignore things like parasitic capacitance and parasitic | inductance of component leads and keep frequencies low and | time scales long enough that we don't have to worry about | speed of light delays between different sides of our | circuits. | | It's the courses after the 101 courses were you start to get | messiness that is the real world of economics or physics or | electronics. | | Anyway, when a real world free market deviates from the | requirements to produce a maximally efficient output one of | the ways to make it work better is to use regulation to try | to make it behave as if the missing requirement held. | | A good example is when you have a good that costs the maker a | significant amount to make but that anyone can easily copy | perfectly at close to zero cost. A free market will tend to | not be efficient for that good because makers have trouble | making a profit (or even staying in business). Consumers pay | near zero for their copies and so can consume as much as they | want, which makes them happy, but there will be much less | variety available than consumers want. | | A long time ago the approach to that was to just not have a | market for that kind of good. Makers would find some rich | patron who was willing to pay to have new goods made. Free | copies might still be made for the masses, but the rich | patrons gained social status among their peers by being | patrons of famous makers so would keep patronizing makers. | | A regulatory fix is to make it so only the maker is allowed | to make copies of their goods. You can then have a decent | market in those goods. It's still not ideal because although | it solves the problem of the market getting makers to make it | does raise the price to consumers above the theoretical free | market price which should be near zero. | | Another approach would be to have the government pay the | makers, and then let anyone freely make copies. This is | probably the way to get closest to maximal efficiency but it | raises the problem of how to have the government decide with | makers to support. One approach to that is to try to track | which things consumers are actually using, and then pay the | makers proportionally to that usage. | | Another issue with that approach is where should the money | for the makers come from? It could come from general | government revenues but then you have the problem of deciding | how much should be used for this. Also you will have people | who don't like these kind of goods and object to their tax | dollars going to support them. Another approach is to tax use | of these goods to fund the makers, or tax something that | correlates well with use of the goods. | | Let's not overlook that an approach that requires tracking of | consumer use might require surveillance that, in the hands of | someone who wants to do something less benign than just | figure out how to allocate maker pay, could be used for evil | purposes. That might be too high a price to pay just to get | the most efficient levels of production and consumption of | this particular good. | | Real economics is complicated and messy. | kibwen wrote: | Sadly, no. Or it does, but only if one defines "efficiency" | tautologically as "what a free market would do", which is | sadly too common. There are many factors that contribute to | inefficient markets, one of which is information asymmetry | among the participants. Keeping markets efficient takes work, | and, indeed, sometimes requires regulation. | throw123123123 wrote: | Because the obscurity of the prices is a result of regulation | as well. We need less layers of control with "unintended" | consequences. | daenz wrote: | Can you elaborate on the regulations that you are referring | to? | arwhatever wrote: | Can't point to the source, but I think we all know that | there is some sort of regulation requiring us to pay | providers for services when those providers refuse to | provide pricing information at before or during the time of | service. | IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: | That sounds, among other things, like something entirely | unrelated to the issue. | AdmiralAsshat wrote: | That would get in the way of unadulterated _profit_ , you see. | ch4s3 wrote: | Health insurers in the US have a cap on how much of premiums | can go to profits. | throwaway12245 wrote: | It this a windfall profits tax? | heavyset_go wrote: | Premiums are not the only source of revenue insurers have. | uoaei wrote: | Would you like to provide a positive statement that | coincides with this negative one? | heavyset_go wrote: | Copays, deductibles, revenue from providers, etc. | coredog64 wrote: | The copay goes to the healthcare provider, not the | insurance company. That's why it's called copay: You are | jointly paying the provider alongside the insurance | company. | | A deductible is an amount of care that you're solely | responsible for. None of that money goes to an insurance | company. | wccrawford wrote: | Doesn't that just mean that they have an interest in | keeping these costs _high_? The higher the costs, the | larger that % is for the in absolute dollars. | | If all the costs come down, they are allowed to make less | money. | ch4s3 wrote: | Yes, I agree that price controls set by the state are a | bad idea. | jjeaff wrote: | In a vacuum, that would make sense, but most of these | insurers still have to compete with at least one or two | other big players. | | So while you could increase your costs so that you can | increase your premiums thus getting 5% of a larger pie, | that assumes that you can increase your premiums without | losing customers to competitors. | | For the most part, on the ACA marketplace, all the plans | are pretty similar, so price is really your main | differentiator. | | Perhaps the obstacles of switching providers makes this | competition less of an issue. | nimish wrote: | Bingo. This is why they loved the ACA. Only allowed one | scoop of ice cream? Great I'll use an enormous scoop. | lotsofpulp wrote: | That enormous scoop results in 5% or less profit margins. | | Compare to tech companies' profit margins. | CogitoCogito wrote: | So? They're insurance companies. Why should they have | high profit margins? | lotsofpulp wrote: | I never wrote they should. I am disputing the notion that | they earn huge profits ("enormous scoop"). Which is | trivially disproven by looking at their financials. | corrral wrote: | The "enormous scoop" refers to their incentive to drive | prices higher so their "scoop" (the 5%) is bigger in | absolute terms, I believe. | CogitoCogito wrote: | How is it disproven exactly? Are you saying 5% is not a | lot because it's the number 5 or something? | jcranmer wrote: | S&P 500 average profit margin is typically around 10%. | So, yes, 5% _is_ low profit margins. | CogitoCogito wrote: | I already said it elsewhere, but I think blindly | comparing profit margins across totally different | industries is kind of dumb. But continue to compare | insurance companies to Apple if you'd like. | lotsofpulp wrote: | From experience operating businesses and reading | financials of various companies, 5% profit margin is on | the low end. Walmart and other retail play in the 2% to | 5% range. | CogitoCogito wrote: | Why would you compare such different businesses profit | margins? | | Anyway I just think saying a 5% profit margin is small | because other businesses have larger profit margins is | kind of naive. I mean if through competition insurance | companies' profit margins dropped to 2%, then the current | status quo of 5% would seem crazy. | | It's all just a matter of perspective. Saying 5% is low | because other businesses have higher profit margins | doesn't make much sense since the businesses are totally | incomparable. | magila wrote: | Yes, this is one of the more unfortunate unintended | consequences of the ACA. | heavyset_go wrote: | Insurance costs were increasing at a higher rate each | year before the ACA was passed or went into effect. | ch4s3 wrote: | The rate of growth didn't go negative or to 0, it just | slowed down. | vanattab wrote: | It may have been unintended but it was defiantly not | unknown, I remember people pointing out this exact | problem during the debate around ACA. | tryptophan wrote: | "unintended" | | Insurance companies wrote the bill. | ch4s3 wrote: | Parts of it, but it's not clear that MLR was one of those | parts or even a net positive for insurers. | mypalmike wrote: | Are you implying that before ACA, insurers had an | incentive to keep costs low? | Spooky23 wrote: | Yes. Although painted by reactionaries as a communist | plot, ACA was modeled after Massachusetts' "Romneycare". | | It's typical old school GOP policy of leveraging private | sector actors with public sector dollars. It's not awful | policy, but did create bad cost incentives and encourages | cartel like health networks. | coredog64 wrote: | It's called Romneycare because he got it implemented as a | lightweight alternative to a pending proposal for more | universal coverage. | | It's also similar in nature to the Swiss system. Not a | lot of GOP voters in Swiss cantons. | ch4s3 wrote: | You don't need to be a reactionary to see that it was | very poorly written and that the implementation was even | worse. | NaturalPhallacy wrote: | IIRC, it's 15%, meaning that they can only have | $675,000,000,000.00 in profits. | | That is $675,000,000,000.00 they can take from us and | instead of using for healthcare or even healthcare | administration, it's just additional money that they took. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > it's just additional money that they took. | | When did they take it? | | All the 10-Ks are showing me 5% or less profit margins. | nicoburns wrote: | They have low profit margins, but they massively overpay | for the care, meaning that it's still incredibly | inefficient. | daenz wrote: | It seems like the cap should be unnecessary in the near | future if we have full price transparency. | jjav wrote: | That's a meaningless cap because you can decrease profits | at will by increasing inefficiency and unnecessary costs | inside the company. | coredog64 wrote: | It's called medical loss ratio (MLR), and insurers are | required by law to spend 80-90% of premiums on medical | care. | | They can get there by overpaying for care or by refunding | money/charging less. But they can't get there with | increased internal administration spending. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Also why wages and other transaction data (like it is for real | estate in most states) should be public. | ledauphin wrote: | i don't follow this argument. | | thr salient point for me is that people should be able to see | prices before they commit to contracting to pay them (e.g. by | receiving healthcare). | | With wages, employees (and employers) get to see their price | before committing. So the need for transparency seems like it | would need a different justification. | heavyset_go wrote: | It's because information asymmetry allows for maximum profits. | tomrod wrote: | I view healthcare as a service, like utilities. There is a | reason the PUC exists in so many (all?) US states. | april_22 wrote: | George Akerlof's work on information assymetry, especially | his 'Market for Lemons' is super interesting and I can only | recommend reading about it. He won the Nobel price 2001 for | it. | | https://you.com/search?q=George+Akerlof+information+asymmetr. | .. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/george-a-akerlof.asp | epgui wrote: | IMO, as a non-affected Canadian, this is one of the (very few) | good outcomes of the Trump presidency. | pkaye wrote: | Next step is pharmacies. Find out which step in the chain is | overpricing. The manufacturers, PBMs or local pharmacies, etc. | uoaei wrote: | I think we all already know it's all of them. | quarantaseih wrote: | Agreed, but admin is probably the greediest and while adding | the least value. | corrral wrote: | I've been reading about healthcare systems off and on, | sometimes fairly seriously, for over 15 years, and my | conclusion about the entire US system is that "the problem" | is "literally everyone involved". | | It's why various schemes that target one thing (say, | excessively-expensive doctor liability insurance, which gets | talked up as some super-big deal and a huge part of the | problem in certain circles) are typically expected, on sober | analysis, to have only a tiny effect on prices-- _everyone_ | is taking too much money, at every level, so at most steps | the % increase over what 's reasonable isn't huge, but by the | time you filter through a few layers of that with everyone | piling atop the other layers, sure enough, it's a solid | 30%-40% more expensive than it has any reason to be. But | there's no one, or two, or even three things you can point at | and say "if we fix this, we fix almost the entire problem". | _Every part_ of it needs a shake-up. It 's like 20 different, | though interrelated, problems, contributing to the bad result | we see. Addressing most or all of the problem will take tens | of measures, or else one big, sweeping, fundamental overhaul | (M4A or what have you) | fragmede wrote: | Hopefully this approach will help the situation: | https://costplusdrugs.com/ | imperio59 wrote: | Not to get political, but pretty sure this is thanks to one of | Trump's last executive orders while he was in office. Correct me | if I'm wrong | [deleted] | macksd wrote: | I've lost count of all the problems I've had with medical | billing. I can't understand an argument against public pricing | because it seems like a clear win if you believe in free market | dynamics or progressive reformation of the health care system. | But it seems to me the system is just rotten to the core anyway. | It makes even my Libertarian self want single-payer healthcare, | but I have no expectation the set of people currently working in | the system would do anything but keep it rotten. | | In the most recent case I tried to get a written quote for | procedures because of past problems. I was given the run-around | until all I could get was a verbal quote over the phone. But if | that wasn't good enough, my only recourse was to delay getting a | suspicious lump examined. I was then charged more than I was | quoted, and I was even billed for procedures they didn't do. I | actually heard one of the employees say "I added that because I | thought he was using insurance". Still - hours of phone calls | over several weeks before they would even bill me correctly | without adding tests that they had no results from. And even then | - more expensive than they told me because the person I was | transferred to over the phone was in a different state than the | clinic I called in the first place. | | Absolutely rotten. | bushbaba wrote: | Don't forget all that time spent on the healthcare side. Easily | 10%+ of the cost of operation. | BryanBeshore wrote: | Now tell me about the relationship between health insurers and | hospitals, and how they engage in pricing. | bushbaba wrote: | This will be huge! I've found that self paying can be 1/nth the | cost of paying through my insurance. But you need to request self | pay up front. | | Being able to better understand prices before hand will | drastically help people reduce their healthcare costs. | dwringer wrote: | I've seen the exact opposite of this - the self pay option | would cost (for example) $300 while insurance would only get | billed $150 for the exact same procedure. In the case I saw it, | that meant the insurance paid out something like $12 and I was | on the hook for the remaining $138. Which is roughly the same I | would have owed if insurance had been billed the full amount | and paid out the remaining $162. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-01 23:00 UTC)