On health care price transparency (from the comments)

From MR commentator Sure:

Generally such figures do not reside within the physicians’ office. On our side of the table we do some procedure with multiple specifications and generate some CPT code(s) (e.g. a lap cholycystectomy is 47562, add on a common bile duct exploration and it becomes a 47564, and if you just do cholangiography it becomes a 47563). Generally, we couple that with an ICD-10 code that specifies your exact disease (K80 for simple stones, K81 for cholecystitis, etc.). We then dump those codes into a computer.

Can either of those change? Absolutely, we find a bunch of friable neovasculature around the gallbladder, congrats you likely have cancer which means this surgery is now both a different CPT code and a different ICD-10 set. Maybe only one does – we find the gallbladder lacks an obstructing stone, but does have transmural inflammation then you get a new ICD-10 code. If we find that you actually have multiple obstructing stones and we need to go deeper into the biliary tree, then those are different CPTs.

Regardless, we do what is medically indicated, document the codes used.

At this point, unless your physician keeps billing fully in house, those get handled by a processer. Often, bills from multiple providers get handled by one processor who in turn gives insurance companies bills to their specifications. Often this involves a bunch things – where was the surgery done (through very complicated rules, critical access hospitals, for example, can charge more for the same surgery because the government wants to keep them solvent lest a bunch of people lose their local emergency room and OR), who was doing it (e.g. there is a different rate if you have medical trainees involved), and of course stuff about you (e.g. complex patients get reimbursed at higher rates with the expectation that, on average, the higher rates cover higher complication rates and insurance doesn’t incentvize surgeons to make all their complex patients drive for hours and hours). Then we get to the big buys – buyers. For Medicare, there are some committees that appear to be overwhelmingly ignorant of actual medical practice but they set baseline reimbursements for these CPT/ICD-10 combos. Those then get adjusted to account for regional costs, equity concerns, and only God knows what all else. These are normally set near the break even point on national average. Medicaid, typically, uses those rates as a baseline and then cuts them (hence why many physicians won’t take new Medicaid patients, the reimbursement rates often leave folks at a net loss). Private insurers add another layer of negotiation where they use their monopsony power to extract lower rates while, allegedly, assuring physicians of volume. The range of these negotiations can be exceedingly wide – insurers can have modifiers for quality of care (e.g. how many folks come back in the perioperative period), timeliness of care, and so on and so forth.

Okay, so somebody has haggled set a rate and we just assume that get the bog standard lap chole we have a price?

Of course not.

See that is just what has agreed, in theory, these medical services will be reimbursed at. Actual reimbursement involves a non-negligable risk on non-payment (e.g. insurance denies and the patient cannot or will not pay), delayed payment (and having to utilize credit lines to cover payroll when a large insurer has an IT glitch and doesn’t pay for two weeks is quite expensive), and of course variable legal and compliance costs. You might also be hit with clawbacks, partial payments, and a host of other payment uncertainty.

Okay, but’s lest assume a single CPT/ICD-10 setup, a prenegotiated rate that is paid on time without further processing costs, and everything is chill there. We got a price yet?

Of course not.

See all of the above is for just the surgeon’s professional fees – i.e. what is being paid for use of his hands. The OR itself? That’s a completely different bucket of money that has its own set of billing and negotiations. Facility fees make the professional fees look straight forward and simple.

But we are done now? Right?

Of course not.

See those were the professional fees for your surgeon. You also need an anesthesiologist (and/or his minions). And guess what, yep completely different bucket of money and price negotiation.

But we are done now?

Well, no. There may be different negotiations for lab fees (e.g. where does the CBC get billed), for tissue pathology, for any post-operative hospital services, and of course medications (which are billed completely differently if outpatient or inpatient) to name a few of the more common options.

There isn’t “a” price for a surgery. There are, potentially, a dozen diferent prices that can be combined in a multitude of ways with some buckets covered by one payer and other parts covered by another (and things get crazy fun when you have overlapping payers).

But aren’t there cash only surgical places with listed prices? Yes. And they have an extremely limited set of procedures with everything owned in house – i.e. a setup that is pretty much illegal to set up de novo post Obamacare.

Why does everyone have all these bizarre negotations. Why don’t you just pay the surgeon everything and then he pays the hospital, the anesthesiologist, the pathologist, etc. from that cut? Because that is an invitation for your surgeon to be charged with a crime. It is federal crime to underbill or to underbill when it comes to government monies (and in many states, private insurance monies). We are required not just to I Pencil up a price, but to make that price transparent to regulators. If a hospital wants to grant me cheaper OR time because I have reliable stream of patients, keep the OR cleaner (reducing turnaround time enough to fit another case per day in), and don’t create ancillary malpractice risk at the going rate … the hospital risks being tagged with inducement. If I negotiate a cheaper rate with the lab for my patients’ tests, it is considered prima facie evidence for kickbacks and I then have a positive burden to prove that I am not getting clandestine remuneration from the lab.

Separate, disjointed, billing through bureaucratic negotiation is legible. It is legible to the courts, to regulators, and to malpractice insurers.

But doesn’t all this massive change efficiency of care delivery?
Not that I can easily see. I have personal experience with IHS, TriCare, Kaiser, the VA, and for-profit, non-profit, and even prison care; full Beveridge like IHS is often the least efficient.

So where do cash prices come from? Outside of cash only practices, those are overwhelmingly fictions that somebody pulled out of their nether regions in a likely futile attempt to BS the counterparty to an insurance negotiation.

Why is this all so complicated:
1. Principle agent. The patient has a wildly different incentive structure than the collective payer (insurance or government) and American healthcare is insanely deferential to the patient compared to alternatives. The folks with the most direct control feel at most a small fraction of the price pain have near zero incentive to economize for anything big.
2. Taxes. The original sin of American healthcare was making insurance, rather than medical procedures themselves, tax deductible. This creates very strong incentives for people to bundle non-healthcare into insurance premiums in hard to define manners (e.g. is a health insurer offering a rebate for gym membership incentivizing exercise, allowing folks who would already have gym memberships to pay pre-tax, or just selecting for healthier patients).
3. People are terrified of physician abuse. Most folks, even other physicians, have a very hard time knowing if their physician is taking them for a ride. So they turn to something powerful to regulate physicians. But, not knowing what actually matters, these folks find it extremely hard to navigate market transactions. Healthcare would far rather have 100 unattributable deaths and 2x costs than to have 1 attributable death that regulation could avoid.
4. A complete disconnect between what folks experience for prices (e.g. my tape easily costs 10x more than department store specials, my EMR internal word processor is an order of magnitude more expensive than MSWord let alone Emacs or the like) and how medical expenses run.
5. A failure to appreciate the costs of having things on standby. We have folks ready incase a simple IR procedure perfs the vessel walls. We have countless folks handy in case your infusion leads to anaphylaxis. Or your blood transfusion moves on to TRALI. Just opening the doors typically means that we need to have a few dozen physicians and their support staff available at all times. I’ve seen a simple gallbladder turn into a massive transfusion with staging, SICU, and the whole works. I have seen STD treatment turn into a catastrophic emergency of the sort that gets Derm to come in at oh ass hundred.

None of those go away if we post prices. And a lot of people will be upset – somebody will decry us pricing differently for different patients – everyone deserves the same care at the same cost. Somebody will decry us for not pricing differently enough – people should be reward for making good decisions.

Long run, healthcare is going to get more expensive. I expect it will eventually be on part with mortgage payments (you know you live in your body 24/7). But there is an evergreen fantasy that … if only … then we could reduce prices.

You can’t. You can, maybe, make them rise more slowly, normally for harsh tradeoffs Americans won’t stand. And just about every significant intervention that really moves the price needle … is either selection (e.g. health share ministries have wildly healthier populations because they are heavily selected about drugs, promiscuity, and the rest) or given entirely back by the patient dying later. And the handful of things to do pass muster (e.g. HPV vaccination, Hep C treatment) … it becomes yet another morass of how much to pay whom.

Healthcare is not a normal market. We should stop pretending it could be one.

Comments

Why do you gotta slice and dice to price every component? I buy a house, not the bricks, the mortar, the wood, rent the carpenters, the plumbers, the landscapers. The output I buy is the house.

In medicine the output is the QUALY [look it up]. Pay for a QUALY. For primary care, pay doctors capitation. That comes close to the QUALY. For hospitals, charge by QUALY.

Different insurances could charge whatever the hell they please for a QUALY. Competition will keep everyone on their toes. Insurance companies can deal with measurement problems.

The problems described are very, very US centric. Insular.

Respond

How would this work for, say, a herniated disc? The main long-term treatment is physical therapy coupled with lifestyle changes. Success depends partly on patient compliance and the outcome itself is highly subjective -- everyone has back pain occasionally so how bad is the pain, how long does it last, and to what extent does it interfere with daily activities?

Respond

There is plenty of data from which to compute averages and provide a published estimate against which performance can be tracked. That's what consumers of professional services do in actual free markets. Making every transaction in this sector a Persian rug bazaar involving third parties with no input from the actual consumer is not how you lower costs.

Respond

It is, however, one of the more common ways to comply with regulations, liability mitigation, and uncompetitive negotiations.

The other alternative is to vertically integrate a market under and a mono(dou)poly and put all the service lines and fee sources under one roof. This has the advantage that one entity on the provider side does have all the costs and profits on one balance sheet ... but so far it is, at best, a complete bust for lowering prices (and at worst actively raises them through local monopoly power).

There is one set of constraints on healthcare that makes this a hash. It is the nature of payments, the nature of regulations, the nature of malpractice risk, and a heavy dose of inertia.

But with no single problem we also see no hope for one singular quick fix.

If you want me to lower costs (in the short term): let me own a hospital with 50 fellow physicians, allow us malpractice liability protection provided we hit prespecified milestones (and I largely don't care what you pick as long as the traditional hospitals have to meet them too), create financial incentives for patients to economize, and allow us to charge patients more aggressive for different risk and cost profiles.

Long run, all of those will fall, but our healthcare billing system wasn't built for efficiency or even naked profit maximization. It was built for regulatory compliance and navigating the insurance premium tax exemption from WWII.

Respond

Slice and dice happens for a couple of reasons:
1. Making legal compliance legible. I can tell the regulators that my all-inclusive price for an appendectomy was negotiated with all the "sub-contractors" at a fair market value, but that isn't good enough to do things quick. I have to prove, with calculations and paperwork, that our negotiations are not some form of inducement, kickback, or other forbidden activity. Separate billing means that because I don't purchase or bill from another provider, there is no monetary nexus for me to even be accused of such activity.

2. Liability. If your house is defective, your general contractor has some idea. He may not be a mason, but he has enough knowledge to see if the masonry is crooked or if some load bearing element is not stable when you but the roof on. Your surgeon, your anesthesiologist, your pathologist, your core staff, your laboratory staff ... not only have different skill sets, but they are rarely intelligible to more than one other person in the chain. Your surgeon, for instance, has essentially zero ability to tell if your pathologist read the slides correctly to exclude cancer. Your pathologist, in turn, is even more clueless about how the anesthesiologist did for managing patient perfusion during a complex surgery. Often none of the physicians involved even know the basic science of how the lab techs are actually measuring the numbers that drive clinical decisions (e.g.if your pCO2 is measured by a Severinghaus electrode) get the answers, let alone how they troubleshoot.

A simple fix for liability is to sell only the services you directly control. The Pathologist missed a sub centimeter focus of aggressive of high grade ovarian endometrial adenocarcinoma that later mets and yields a wrongful death lawsuit following subsequent review? Your surgeon can far more easily get out of the lawsuit by saying - I had no relationship to the pathologist. I do my cases at City General on the assumption that City General contracts with a pathologist group that is full of board certified pathologists. I had no direct financial relationship with the malpracticing pathologist so I have no liability.

This isn't despositive, but it works to a large degree.

But when you bill both the surgical and pathology professional fees, you have a much harder time arguing that it was somebody else's responsibility to vet the pathologists. Juries and settlement lawyers like this sort of things, at least according to my legal eagles.

3. This is how CMS bills things and all the modifiers and the like are highly bucket dependent; separate billing incentivizes everyone who could properly generate CPTs and ICDs to do so fully. Your surgeon isn't going to know all the CPTs for anesthesia. He isn't going to know all the relevant cutoffs and judgments that result in upcoding or downcoding. If he pays the anesthesia a negotiated rate, he is at the mercy of the anesthesiologist doing charge capture in manner that exactly reflect the billing (which is annoying and time consuming) when the anesthesiologist has no further financial incentive.

4. Which brings us to the other thing. It is not good enough to just name a price where the surgeon turns a profit and anesthesia is happy with fee for service. Underbilling is considered prima facie evidence of crime. Maybe I'm a good negotiator. Maybe I am a fast surgeon and anesthesia can expect to get down with my cases two hours earlier every day. I ask for a flat price, he gives it, we bill the patient ... then CMS starts to wonder if the anesthesiologist is giving me a sweatheart deal to stear (certain) patients to him preferentially (e.g. those on Medicare and not Medicaid).

A surgeon needs the billing paperwork for anesthesia to demonastrate perfect accuracy for complete safe harbor. Anesthesia overcharges found on audit open you up to legal liability and can result in proportional clawback (e.g. we sampled 10 cases, found one overbill, so now you have give the government back 10% of everything with whatever they deem to be relevant codes). And if you want to dispute some audit finding, yeah wildly cheaper and easier if you are the guy who knows the billing discipline.

Billing on QALYs would require a massive financial market that can evaluate the impacts of interventions now against long run outcomes that are fully realize decades from now. This likely means selling some sort of futures contracts on individuals' deaths.

Worse, of course, is that QALY billing creates a highly perverse incentive incentive structure. Suppose I remove some adnexal mass. If I am paid per strict QALY, then we have to consider what the mass is. Something benign and slow growing has minimal impact on QALY outside of the pain and discomfort the patient experiences. Something that it malignant but not terribly invasive or fast growing can book a huge number of QALYs, but something that is frankly metastatic and aggressive is going to show few QALYs. Suddenly your surgeon stands to get paid *far* more if the preoperative pain is scored high (i.e. depriving the patient of pain medications, possibly effective PT, mitigating hormone therapy) raises the QALY score mechanically. They also get paid more if the diagnosis lands in the sweet spot - and if you are doing one shop billing that creates a huge incentive for path to move everything towards the middle bucket.

Which ultimately deprives the patient. Once we've incurred the cost of the surgery, it is a sunk cost from the system point of view. So we want the patient to get as accurate a diagnosis as possible so they can enjoy their final months if the diagnosis is poor or rest comfortable knowing their risk of recurrance/systemic treatment is low.

And all of that ignores the uncomfortable fact that QALY gains differ in unfortuante ways. For a given intervention, Blacks typically gain fewer QALYs (maybe its racism, maybe its violence/drug use/poverty, maybe it is unfortunate genetics - whatever) for a given procedure; do we really want to strictly bill on QALYs where surgeons get paid less for operating on Black folks? How about the elderly? Just how steeply should billing decline with age? How about IVDUs or schizophrenics? For a lot of severe psychiatric disorders any further medical care is going to be wildly discounted. How about syndromic kids? I mean Downs takes ~30 years off the top.

The public wants two incompatible things on billing - they want to pay for only the medicine that is high value and they want to pay for everyone the same. That isn't possible unless you deny healthy people care that is valuable to them or you deny unhealthy people care that you will pay for in healthy people. The public gets outraged whenever they hear about either side of that coin (i.e. a huge reason why single payer works is because the baseline expectations in such countries were set 40 or 80 years ago and nobody knows what is being cut).

No physician knows enough to know if all components being billed are being billed appropriately and even if they did, paying for QALYs would require a sea change in public tolerance one way or another.

Respond

My network decided to go the one price route for most outpatient procedures and many inpatient ones. As chair of my department I was a participant in the process. Sure largely is correct I think but I would offer a few caveats. My comments will refer to what we did in my state about 6 years ago and as health care is largely regulated by the states each state varies.

1) The legal issues were minor. The hospital already employed most of the docs and for those it did no (2 of the suprgical subspecialties, radiology and anesthesiology) we just had them agree to participate and submit their average collections including all mayors on the procedure in question and we maintained those emails in our files for future questions if they arose.

2) A big issue if a surgeon does it but not a big issue if a hospital does it since they already have liability for all those employed and independent providers must carry their own insurance.

3) A surgeon has no idea how others bill and what the bill for. They would have to hire someone to figure that out. Would take a lot of time, effort and money.

4) Theoretical and at least per our chief legal counsel as long as we documented the process and are acting in good faith not really an issue. (I dont know if this is true for all states.) The overbilling issue is one on which I am not sure. If the anesthesiologist was seen as the surgeon's employee the surgeon likely has liability. If not, then the anesthesia doc is liable at least based upon my limited legal knowledge. Most surgeons just want to operate. To be clear, they can acquire that knowledge if they want or hire someone who does but it's not how most want to spend their time.

In sum I largely agree that very, very few docs will know enough about the total billing picture to offer the single price someone wanted. There are entities that do have that knowledge like hospitals and surgicenters, many or most of which are now owned by hospitals anyway.

Steve

Respond

WE might think of Sure's comments as a reflection of, and perhaps on a deeper level, a driver of the insane complexity of our health care system.

As a person who built and maintains a substantial database for my own business, there is always competition between development time, ease of operation and the fun part of my business, which is dealing with the actual products. My database is loaded with compromises to simplicity that work just fine and allow me to spend much more of my time on aspects of the business that I find more enjoyable.

In my interactions with the data and input side of other businesses strongly suggests that this part of many businesses is driven by the exhuberantly build-happy and self-advocating tech department rather than the people outside tech who just want functionality. IOW: tech departments make things overly complex for thier own benefit.

Respond

The QALY business is a red-herring adding complexity. I don't care if the doctor doesn't know it.

I do care that I be able to price an elective procedure before it's done. It seems like it should be straightforward for the office performing a procedure to say "this is our price for this procedure, the OR's website/phone has this price for their share of this procedure, this specialist's website/phone has this price for their part, etc., for a single digit number of parts." Sure, those numbers may vary by insurance negotiation, but they should all be capable of saying "this is our price for this procedure for Medicare."

Respond

"I do care that I be able to price an elective procedure before it's done. It seems like it should be straightforward"

This isn't Sure's point, but the hard part of pricing complex professional services in advance is that you don't know what they will cost in advance, and the cost can vary a lot with what's learned during the process.

This is the reason there's cost-plus contracting in defense acquisition, for example. It is a bit of a recipe for provider gouging and inflated costs, which is exactly what we see in medicine too. But it protects the provider in the event the service proves more difficult to provide than expected, which is particularly important in medicine because the doctor is obligated not to give up in the middle if the customer presents some complex problem.

Realistically, I think this is the basis for present day medical pricing, but it's a cop out. It's not that complex a business and the dollar amounts are small for each customer. If the concern is that individual variance is high, that's what corporations are for. BMW offers me a warranty that pays if all I even need is oil changes and also pays if my cylinder block cracks. The make money on average, even if they lose on the case where something goes badly wrong.

The fact is most medical treatment is not highly custom. It's by-the-book or close to it. Sure, cost-plus pricing might make sense if we're seperating conjoined twins, but it probably doesn't make sense for heart bypass or something else where we do thousands of them.

Respond

Wait a minute here. The reason some engineering project can't be estimated in advance is because it's hard to know how many people it will take and how long. It's because it is estimating an unknown that might take 4 years or 4 months. A SURGERY should be easier to estimate. Yes, you might cut open the patient and decide the problem is cancer and not gallstones. Or they are a woman and not a man, but the surgery isn't suddenly going to take 4 years longer.. It's not going to take 4 days longer either. Of course .... if the GOVERNMENT is involved then they might get wildly different costs. But it isn't the complex nature of surgery that makes the estimate difficult. And you might say, well finding out it's cancer means a whole new cost structure .... yes it does. But THAT given surgery shouldn't change so vastly in price because of it. The new diagnosis is an entirely new issue. My MECHANIC can figure out how to call me an give a new estimate if he's there to change the oil and finds out the engine block is cracked.

No. The problems with pricing have been CREATED by massive government regulations.

Respond

The answer to the question of why one does that in international perspective:

--Italy. La lege. [The law]
--Germany. We've always done it that way, or if called for, we've never done it that way.
--United State. Liability.

Respond

I see all the trees. I don't see a forest.

Respond

A tangential point: I have good high deductible health insurance with an HSA and two children with CF. The bills sent to me to treat my children (from the same CF clinic at a major hospital) are a mess. They come from a dozen different providers and do not specify whether my insurance will cover them or when. It used to take me hours to contact the providers and my insurance company to sort it all out. Then I decided it was all a silly game. Now I just wait until a get a bill from a debt collector before I pay (I’ve never had a provider ding my credit rating). Turns out the providers are usually pretty happy with the amount paid by the insurance company and eventually forgive any co-pay or other obligations (which I have never been able to quite figure out). I’m not trying to stiff the doctors or get a discount, it is simply a function of not having my personal back office capacity to keep up with the insane billing process.

Respond

>I buy a house, not the bricks, the mortar, the wood, rent the carpenters, the plumbers, the landscapers. The output I buy is the house.

IDK. I've worked with a general contractor. He'd gladly show me every invoice for every subcontractor who worked on the project and every material used.

Arguably, the insurer is acting as a kind of general contractor, hiding the detail from those who don't care.... which is the case for most insured.

Respond

If construction were controlled by Medicare using outdated values from decades ago then, yeah- your house would have codes.

And if you build a house, your contractor charges by materials and activities and if you are smart you find the ones that are high and try to knock him down (or substitute). My builder had priced Marvin doors (plus installation costs and profit on installation separately) at a huge markup when I know he gets a discount. I substituted a different brand out of my own pockets and wiped out the door materials cost like item.

Insurers do negotiate all of these items, but unfortunately Medicare pricing is the starting point (you know, where orthopedists make 3x what neurologists do). The insurers do a good job and then also give one off payments to practices at the end of the year based upon their volume, cost control and best practices (so even the negotiated price on your EOB isn’t the “real” price.

Every big company I worked for self-insured but then paid eg UHC or BCBS to negotiate pricing and administer claims. Believe me- if the insurers added no value then big companies wouldn’t hire them to do the job.

Obamacare was a killer- basically shut down physician run outpatient clinics that undercut hospital prices and forced practices to sell out to hospital monopolies.

So the doctors got squeezed and forced to sell to hospitals, and we’ve been trying to to squeeze big pharma.

Meanwhile the hospitals and the SEIU and the nurses unions and all the thousands of administrators and managers got to strengthen their monopolies.

Hospital expense is where the US is way out of line with the world. Pharma we know about, but it is only 15pct of expenses. Hospitals are around 55 pct.

Respond

Except that healthcare outcomes fall along an S-curve where two patients with same diagnosis receive the same care with totally different outcomes. There is no reason why the care providers should receive two entirely different reimbursements.

Respond

>In medicine the output is the QUALY [look it up]

When someone says "look it up" for something like QUALY (which is fairly basic in the context of a healthcare discussion), I take away that that someone has not read or participated in enough discussions on the subject, and therefore engaging with them is not going to teach me anything new.

That said, I do agree with your point that the US system is over-complicated in a way that maximizes cost and aggravation for all involved. A QUALY-based system is an interesting thought, but would require fairly deep integration on the provider side, not the balkanized system that currently exists at all levels.

Respond

A question to @Sure.

If you were made

1…the healthcare czar of America, and were given the power to pass any law what would you do?

2…. the healthcare policy head of a recently elected President with a congressional majority in both houses who ran on healthcare reform, what would you do? There’s a political mandate for reform.

I’m coming up with these two scenarios because in the first one voter preferences don’t matter whereas the second one operates within political boundaries. I’m curious to know both answers.

Respond

1) Flee the country because no matter what I did there is no way to get cheap healthcare without taking away something the public is willing to engage in violence over. I have no desire to spend my life worrying about the next Luigi Mangione expressing his rage against the system at me.

If people want wildly cheaper healthcare they already know how to do it: don't smoke, exercise, eat not complete garbage, get married, have lots of sex, have kids, go to church, hang out in person with friends, sleep soundly with a steady schedule, get educated/earn lots of money, don't do drugs, drink no more than one standard drink a night (and like just one or two a week), don't engage in crime, get car with a bunch of safety technology, live close to work/get a remote job, don't gamble ... like all of these have good correlational data and when you do two-thirds of them you almost invariably end up having a way cheaper life course expenses (e.g. most of the above are correlated with lower odds of needing institutional memory care). Some of it is given back because you live longer ... but people know this. They just have a hard time giving up vices (i.e. things where the immediate reward is too tempting for them to hold out to get their preferred long run payout) or actually prefer the less healthy habits. I mean I know guys who understand the odds on prop bets, know that losing them makes them more likely to make dumb decisions, and they still do them.

If the populace isn't willing to do simple stuff (i.e. the self-identified professing and regularly attending Christians who report that they cease to attend church simply simply because they move 20 miles), no incentive structure is going to do anything.

2. These are all minor bits around the edges but with enough buy in could slow down price increases.

Eliminate the employer health insurance deduction by moving the deduction to medical care. Anything that meets criteria for ICD/CPT coding is tax free. If your employer gives you part of your wages with insurance premiums, they get normal tax treatment. But when you get medical care, the bills on those are not taxed. This will, over a generation or two, lead to folks being strategic about how much insurance they buy and might lead to less of a "prepaid services" model where the main decision point (the patient) has near zero incentive to economize.

I'd remove every impediment for physician control, ownership, or management of all facets of healthcare. It is far too hard to compete with the big boys and the only folks who could reasonably run leaner setups are the folks our regs most disadvantage from doing so.

I'd set up rolling changes to reimbursement rates. Actual CMS derived billing for ICD/CPT would be the weighted average of the reimbursement rates for the last 10 years for the same setup. This would remove the incentive for a lot of billing chicanery when CMS squeezes on some line so providers let the balloon flex out somewhere else.

If there really is a broad popular mandate, I would look at some way to reward in the tax code (or with direct payments) healthy choices. Carrying insurance every year you can? You get cash. You manage a healthy A1C (or manage any other medical condition that makes that impossible) you get cash. And so on.

But all the standard crap is useless. Full Beveridge is uselss - IHS does not have better outcomes than the rest of US healthcare. Drug negotiations, so far, see to always devolve into some sort of price fixing (Biden's was basically take this offer, abandon the Medicare population, or we tax you at more than 100% of profit, Trump's is we will recapitulate the price fixes left standing abroad after pharma applies maximal pressure overseas) which definitely seems like risking killing a gold egg laying goose. Vertical integration into ACOs seems to have done nothing but gift monopoly power to major systems who are now squeezing both providers and insurers. Even tort reform is of limited use if we still want to run malpractice as a largely adversarial system where physicians best equilibrium is being legibly inside of safe harbor regardless of systemic costs.

Respond

Thanks for the response. I know you've earlier said that "American healthcare starts with sicker patients and no amount of crafty planning about signing checks or shuffling patients is going to change that."

But I don't think I've truly internalized that. If I haven't, and I've been following healthcare debates since shortly after the Obamacare passage, I can confidently guess almost no one has.

My layman impression was (still is sort of) that most of the healthcare spending is driven by diseases no one can meaningfully control if they get them... like a reasonably healthy lifestyle person getting cancer, which, of course, has its risks of incurring, but they do get cancer... for example, people who never smoke getting lung cancer, for instance.

Had a few conversations about this with GPT : https://chatgpt.com/share/69ef9b5a-6858-83ea-8c8d-62f18ee1e4c0 hope I represented your views accurately...

But he is wrong, or at least not supported, if his claim is:

The biggest reason American healthcare is expensive is that Americans make bad choices.

The evidence supports a more mixed view:
American healthcare is expensive because the U.S. has both worse patients, in the aggregate, and a much more expensive care-production system. The “sicker patients” story explains some of the burden. The “prices/administration/market power/system design” story explains a huge amount of the international spending gap.
A fair steelman of him would be:

You cannot fix U.S. healthcare costs only by changing insurance arrangements, because American morbidity, obesity, addiction, mental illness, family breakdown, and social dysfunction create real medical costs.

A fair critique would be:

But you also cannot explain U.S. healthcare costs mainly by patient behavior, because other countries treat sick, old, obese, addicted, and mentally ill people too, and they generally pay far less per unit of care. The U.S. cost problem is not just demand-side sickness; it is also supply-side pricing and administrative structure.

So: he has an important hospital-operator insight, but he is turning it into too sweeping a political economy conclusion.

Respond

And this is the LLM not understanding things. My critique about sicker patients comes from, largely, life expectancy outcomes.

And the LLMs are flat wrong prima facie. Other countries don't treat everything we do. Much of Northern Europe has Down Syndrome rates roughly inline with the false negative rates on whatever tests they use (e.g. a certain number of Downs patients have normal placentas and pop false negative fetal DNA screens).

I have also already posted, at length, about how the American system runs into the problem that:
1. We are richer than everyone else and we have far more globe dominating firms/industries that are competing for the same talent. Medicine in the US starts with higher wages because we are richer. It adds more competition if we want equivalent quality.

2. American staffing levels are far, far higher for the same treatments and procedures. California nursing ratios range from 1:1 to 1:6 in the main. Germany routinely runs 1:12. I don't know if the California regs amount to more than a giveaway to the nurses unions, but you aren't going to get German prices even after adjusting for patient health, disease severity, international wage comparisons ... we simply have more warm bodies on the floor.

3. Even if you overcome those hurdles, you still have patient demand factors. We built an entire hospital not because we needed a location for more beds, but because the folks getting elective procedures wanted nice rooms in the burbs for their recoveries. We still transfer nearly all the critical stuff to the mothership when things hit the fan, but we dropped 9 figures because that is what patients demand (and we have made it all back).

And ultimately the "administration" bit for me is completely hollow. The IHS is a full Beveridge model of the size of a small European country. It still is wildly more costly than anything in Europe. Like if the magic is complete horizontal and vertical integration under a national provider, the Indians should be the healthiest folk in the US. At the very least IHS hospitals should be demonstrably far cheaper to run than comparable rural hospitals running the normal non- or for-profit models. But they aren't.

But why are the regs so horrible? Why do costly norms prevail when I, literally, pay somebody to go over the books and keep 10% of whatever they can recover? I submit it is because we choose these things because Americans don't want to face a world where care is not equally available to all (e.g. some sort of QALY rationing), where either folks get billed the same and where folks get rewarded for good health choices, and where folks refuse basic cost saving measures (e.g. double occupancy rooms).

Respond

Thanks. Maybe one of the best things we could do is actually completely overhaul the regulatory environment where intentionally low-cost barebones hospitals and clinics can legally open up.

If there is too much political resistance from the providers maybe create a two-tier regulatory environment where one section of the provider is intentionally regulated less and make it so that these providers are mandated by law to advertised that they operate under lower regulatory standards for lower costs.

Maybe some consumers would be okay with such lower cost and lower services operations.

We already see such rationing on the side of consumers when it comes to the auto insurance market. People avoid going through insurance to service their vehicle with a local mechanic to avoid their premiums go up.

Maybe it will fail the market test and such business models never become viable. We currently don't know. So I'd like to see the market try.

Also, regarding the point, "Medicine in the US starts with higher wages because we are richer. It adds more competition if we want equivalent quality", this Random Critical Analysis blog piece is an important piece of evidence—Random Critical Analysis on Health Care

Respond

The above link won't work anymore. Updated link in case anyone is interested. https://chatgpt.com/share/69efa0f8-af44-83ea-94e0-ef3a8cb6eb61

Respond

#1 is so distant from reality that any answer will be fantasy. Here in the USA, laws are tiered. There's Federal and then there's State (and Tribal?). So, I guess we rewrite the Constitution, eh? Might as well toss in the States' Constitutions while we're at it. And that's just to set the playing field. #2 is almost as bad. No one gets elected POTUS without indebtedness to special interests galore. In an Administration with a "mandate", the "policy head" will be, at best, translating the POTUS's platform promises into Legislation (and Executive Orders). Health Care is 18% of GDP, that means that while nearly 100% of Americans will be affected by any "reforms", 1-in-5 will care a whole lot about whose ox gets gored. This can't be wished away. I'm not sure anyone inside the current system can articulate the best way to fix it. One idea I've had is to set up (Federal) HealthCare Insurance Unions with the (eventual) goal of separating employment from healthcare...

Respond

The tort and comp systems have become industries and are dragging all of liability insurance and trauma medicine down with them. Reform is constitutionally (I mean that literally) impossible.

Respond

You bring up tort every time healthcare is discussed.

I asked Gemini how much the tort system costs. The answer is 3% of the money spent on medical care. That includes defensive medicine, malpractice insurance, legal fees and judgements paid.

I’d suggest that insurance companies and pharma companies profits make up an order of magnitude larger share of that pie for a smaller net benefit.

Respond

Very disingenuous comment. Each household in the US is paying $4,207 per year for verdicts and settlements, which is enough to fund some basic socialized medicine. That doesn't include insurance premiums, judicial overhead, claims management, risk management, etc. Lawyers and doctors are becoming multimillionaires off it. Doctors now hold financial stakes in their patients' lawsuits. The diagnostics and treatments have become blatantly fraudulent. No sensible country with a functioning national health care system has anything like it.

Respond

Very disingenuous comment. Each household in the US is paying [large amount] because accidents happen in the real world. Tort law is a strictly zero sum transaction i.e., the accident has already happened, so the only choice remaining is whether the provider pays, the customer pays, or society pays... there is no other possible option as you can't go back in time.

"Institutional design" wise, we normally want the provider to pay damages plus transaction costs b/c they are in the best position to weigh the costs/benefits.

Respond
Continue this thread →

Health insurance is considered a primary benefit to membership, 95% of union members have employee sponsored health insurance, pay less and receive better benefits than non-union workers. Yes, a small percentage of US workforce, with an unmatched influence in politics.
Unions also have a say in insurers' coverage for policy claims which may fall outside coverage.

Respond

#2.. the President and his party ran on many policies that they dumped the moment they got in power - fiscal prudence, not starting wars, etc. They have a habit of doing EXACTLY what they criticize the other party for, nepotism and corruption at the top, for example.

Let's be honest, over a decade after ACA, the Republicans have healthcare policy to replace or enhance it.

Respond

Does LASIK have price transparency?

Why can’t other procedures also be priced?

Respond

LASIK, cosmetic surgery, dental implants, and fertility treatments largely avoid the issues of third-party payment, fragmented billing, regulatory pricing layers, and unpredictable demand. In these cases, you often do see clear, upfront pricing and real competition.

Respond

Feels like you didn't read the full text. I think one answer would be that LASIK is well defined procedure with relatively clear medical boundaries, limited tail risks, a smaller infrastructure footprint, and fewer persons needed per procedure. From my lay perspective, seems like there are just too many variables in "expensive" medical care to standardize the way LASIK is standardized. And much of what makes medicine expensive as a sector, and the things that people fear cost-wise, are far more complex than "simple" procedures like LASIK. Even pregnancy, which seems seems ripe for standardized pricing, still has basic medical tail risks that cannot be calculated up front. And that's without even getting into the structural / organizational issues that Sure touches on.

Respond

As an exercise, I ask GPT to imagine LASIK was as complicated as cancer treatment.

........................................

You walk into a “LASIK center” expecting a simple, fixed-price procedure. But instead:

First, three different specialists evaluate your eyes—each billing separately. One says you’re a standard candidate, another thinks you might have early corneal disease, and a third isn’t sure and orders more tests.
Those tests? They’re done at different facilities. Imaging is billed one way, lab analysis another, and interpretation by a specialist is yet another charge.
You’re given a tentative plan—but during the procedure, the surgeon discovers your cornea is thinner than expected. Now the procedure changes mid-stream. What was supposed to be standard LASIK becomes a more complex variation—or maybe gets partially aborted and converted into something else entirely.
That change doesn’t just affect the surgeon’s fee. It triggers:
a different facility charge,
a different anesthesia approach,
possibly a consult from another specialist,
and a different set of follow-up care requirements.
Meanwhile, the laser suite, the technician team, the backup surgical staff, and emergency support are all on standby in case something goes wrong—costs that exist whether your case is simple or not.
Afterward, your care continues:
Follow-up visits (possibly with different providers),
medications billed differently depending on where you get them,
and maybe pathology-like analysis if something unusual was found.
Now add in the payment layer:
Your insurer may or may not agree with how the procedure was coded.
They may deny part of it, delay payment, or reimburse different pieces at different rates.
Each provider (surgeon, facility, anesthesiologist, imaging center) negotiates separately.
And importantly: none of these parties are allowed to just bundle everything into one clean price and split it up behind the scenes—that can trigger fraud or kickback laws.

Respond

Figure it out geniuses, or it will be figured out for you.

Respond

It has been figured out.

Respond

At the end of the day physicians make more money than than other roles requiring the same IQ, conscientiousness, etc, and continuously lobby against allowing competition with their cartel. Every regulation the OP complains about was made because specific physicians were doing blatantly unethical things that killed people.

Respond

Excellent physicians and (especially) surgeons will get paid. You can effectively cap higher pay by restricting / criminalizing access (like Canada).

I strongly doubt Americans would put up with that crap.

Respond

Well... Surgery Center of Oklahoma seems to be able to provide price transparency (https://surgerycenterok.com/).

Seems like Sure is just listing off ways things are done now, not reasons for how it could not be different.

I go to a mechanic for an oil change, and they find other stuff wrong, and they charge me for those things. Yes fraud can occur but it's not like it's some exotic market that no one can understand.

Respond

Surgery Center of Oklahoma is physician owned and operated. It was founded in 1997.

It is, generally, *illegal* to start such a center today thanks to prohibitions enacted under Obama.

Could we get better billing if the laws were changed? Yes. I am doubtful that we get that much movement at the system level. After all, small niche places overwhelmingly benefit from patient selection.

But the billing I outlined above is for a simple surgeon's office. You can get variations for vertically integrated hospital systems - but then you face monopoly pricing issues. You can get different variations for the single payer, Beveridge, and the like systems in the US (e.g. the VA, IHS, TriCare), but then you face issues with congressional mandates.

The system we have exists because it is, God help us, one of the less painful ways to comply with regulation.

Respond

I've mentioned before that one of the larger career disappointments of a doctor acquaintance was that he and other physicians could not start a doctor's hospital.

Respond

I helped research the place when our network decided to offer a single price for many procedures. First, at least back when we did it they were not truly comprehensive and pts sometimes found there were extra payments at time of surgery. Those were mostly "elective" options that my hospital thought should be part of standard care. These extras were not huge and did not apply to all patients. Second, while the physicians may or may not have understood all of the financials they could hire someone who did. Third, surgicenters have a huge advantage over inpatient facilities as they have almost no beta. If there are complications the pt goes to the hospital and their prolonged hospital stay is covered by insurance. It does not come out of the flat fee paid to the surgicenter. Last, Their prices were nearly identical to ours and we were going to have to care for complications, some of which insurance would pay for and some not. The impression my team had was that for what they offered their prices were a bit high. However, they have awesome PR people.

Steve

Respond

“ It is, generally, *illegal* to start such a center today thanks to prohibitions enacted under Obama.”

The motivations behind “ACA Section 6001” seem to be quite dark. It seems like the authors explicitly did not want the cost of the bundle of obligations imposed by the government exposed.

Crazy.

Respond

Unless there is active work to vastly increase doctors' supply, price transparency can only go so far. In any other market, wages of US doctors attract a more more supply, but the medical system strangles it, often deliberately to rent-seek.

* Remove requirement for undergrad before medical school.
* Remove residency requirements to hire foreign trained physicians.
* Add medical school slots.. Claude.. on this "The US has steadily increased medical school enrollment (~30% more seats since 2002, including new schools), but the residency slot bottleneck remains the binding constraint. Without a residency, an MD graduate cannot become a licensed independent physician. Expanding GME funding requires an act of Congress, which has been debated but not broadly passed. In short: medical schools control their own capacity, constrained by accreditation standards and the practical ceiling of available residency positions"

Respond

One of the goals of health care reform was to reduce the "fragmentation" in the delivery of health care services, the "fragmentation" resulting in the complex billing as many different often unrelated providers contribute to the services. It was thought that if there was less "fragmentation", there would be less complexity. So less "fragmentation" we got, meaning fewer independent hospitals more and larger hospital corporations and fewer independent doctors and more doctors employed by hospitals or very large single and multi special group practices. In other words, less "competition" and choices for patients. Was it an improvement? Patients say no (they seldom see the same doctor) and doctors say no (large employers are more focused on profitability and enforce protocols that limit the time doctors can spend with one patient). So be careful what you wish for.

One major development in health care that took off in the 1980s was the proliferation of small, independent outpatient centers, such as surgery centers and diagnostic centers. In other words, competition for hospitals. They were typically owned by doctors, are more efficient than hospitals, operate at much lower costs, and charge much lower fees. Indeed, they were credited with "bending the cost curve". So what happened to them during the era of reducing "fragmentation"? Most have been acquired by large hospital corporations, hospitals eliminating the competition. But hospitals prefer for the patient to have services in the hospital not on an outpatient basis, because inpatient care is where the higher fees and profits are. Doctors who are now employed by hospitals know it. So reducing "fragmentation" reduced some of the complexity (multiple parties billing the same patient for the same malady) but at much higher cost. Are you happy now?

Disclosure: my law practice since the 1980s focused on independent health care providers including relatively small doctor practices and outpatient centers, almost all of which are now gone. I've spent the bulk of the past ten years representing my clients as they were being acquired by large hospital corporations and large specialty care corporations, for profit entities that are not owned by doctors, the principal offices for which are located in a few American cities that have become health care corporate centers (e.g., Nashville), far from where the patients are.

Respond

Agreed. In my town, a hospital wants to set up satellite urgent care facilities so they can generate ER-level billing for what is provided much cheaper by urgent care facilities. These satellite facilities look just like the urgent care providers, have the same lower overhead as the urgent care facilities, but since they are somehow connected with the hospital, they get to bill at higher ER rates.

Respond

Ahem: reducing fragmentation works pretty well when there is price competition. When there is no price competition, there is no incentive to lower prices, regardless of whatever methods are used to reduce costs.

Basic economics.

Respond

Monopoly works? Do you work at Mercatus?

Respond

Lobbying to regulations works. Do you work for Obamacare?

Respond

My thought expressed by an AI:
Sure’s post is the best inside-the-system description of US healthcare billing I’ve read. It is also the cleanest available specimen of how that system looks to the people inside it — which is the part that should give us pause.
Notice what Sure narrates as exogenous constraints. Anti-kickback law. Fragmented professional fees. Compliance-driven separate billing. CPT/ICD-10 complexity. He describes these as architectural features the industry suffers under to satisfy regulators, lawyers, and CMS. They are real. They are also, to a substantial degree, the product of decades of input from organized medicine into the regulatory and statutory environment that produced them. The AMA owns CPT and licenses it back to CMS for revenue. The RUC — an AMA-convened private body, ~90% specialists — recommends the relative values that determine Medicare physician payment, with CMS adopting roughly 87% of those recommendations. State medical boards and ABMS control credentialing privately. The 1997 residency slot freeze, lobbied for by AMA, persists.
The combination matters: private pricing authority, private credentialing gate, fragmented payer counterparty, and legal foreclosure of integration alternatives. Sure mentions the foreclosure parenthetically — “pretty much illegal to set up de novo post Obamacare.” That parenthetical is the most analytically valuable line in the post. Where the four-feature combination is bypassed (Surgery Center of Oklahoma), prices become legible and substantially lower. New entrants in that mold cannot be established at scale.
This isn’t “the AMA bought Congress.” It is that organized medicine occupies the price-setting and credentialing positions of an unusually weak counterparty environment. From inside that structure, the resulting complexity reads as compliance burden. From outside, it reads as the architecture of a durable rent.
That distinction is what the price-transparency debate keeps missing.

Respond

The AMA as a dark cabal somehow determining prices is a farce. Yes they have the RUC, the ABMS, and the CPT licenses ... all of which I support burning to the ground by the way and all of them are generally loathed by practicing physicians ... but they also only represent maybe a fifth of physicians. And many of those members cannot be arsed to actually lobby for anything. An industry spanning cartel it ain't.

But let's ignore that. Black box it. Physicians have magical power to leverage more than their market share. Where's the evidence?

Have physicians been taking an increasing share of the healthcare pie? No that's been going down for quite some time.

Okay, well maybe they just make the whole pie grow larger while sucking off higher absolute amounts of cash?

Well no, the BLS series in 1975 and 2025 show a net negative change in real physician income (i.e. with inflation adjustment).

Well but maybe the BLS series is flawed?

Well yes, the guys back in '75 were doing even better because they had more non-monerary remuneration (e.g. "free" physicians dining rooms, free travel from drug reps) .

Okay, but that was all just crooked conflict of interest stuff how about excluding that stuff?

No. See physicians back then were, on average, building or acquiring practices which had real value in their ownership stakes. These days the modal physician is an employee and none his expenses are buying equity.

Maybe the BLS series was active back in 1975 and the modern alternative measures are closer comparsions than the BLS data for 2025?

Eh, even accepting a strict apples to oranges comparsion for accounting, physician income has risen at mayb 0.2% per annum in real terms over the single greatest increase in efficiency in medical history ever. We have an order of magnitude more treatments, we can treat wildly more disease, and we do it all while the patient population moves the wrong direction on most everything but cigarettes and GLP drugs.

Well maybe the AMA isn't really in it for the money, they just want the control and social prestige?

Ehh, in spite of all manner of lobbying the US leads the world in undercutting prestige and power for physicians with PAs and NPs. There are ever, increasingly fewer unique privileges for physicians.

Maybe physicians just want stiff it to foreign physicians?
Are you kidding something like 1 in 4 physicians is already an IMG. We have one of the highest exposure rates to foreign labor of any industry in the BLS series. And the Match is leaving increasing amounts of US MD/DO grads unmatched.
Well maybe physicians just want to be masters of their own domains?

Nah documentation burdens are nuts now, the number of non-physician administrators telling us what to do has grown exponentially,

Maybe they just want to establish an hereditary caste?

Nah, the average physician explicitly discourages their kids from going into medicine. Reports that they if they had to do it all over again would likely skip medicine and definitely would take a different specialty.

There are rent seekers who benefit from the RUC, AMA, the ABMS, the ACGME, the LCME, and the rest ... but they are a much more narrow set of clients than physicians as a whole.

The big boys, who, you know, actually had a specific exemption from antitrust law written on demand during a major court case, are the AHA. I have zero doubt in my mind that they have bought and sold all manner of politicians to stifle their competition, squeeze physicians/insurers/patients, and capture the regulators to allow them competitive advantage.

The AMA is too small, too incompetent, and too compromised to manipulate at the scale required.

Respond

The upshot: stay healthy. Avoid the health care system unless absolutely unequivocally necessary.

Respond

"Healthcare is not a normal market," and not only because the idea of posting prices is ridiculous. Healthcare is not a market at all, because the natural expectations of both providers and patients are nothing like those in a normal price transaction. It is ridiculous to treat these expectations as market failures because that distorts the natural psychology.

The best solution for the United States is to use the free market system on the supply side to create and deliver medicines and machines up to the point of the providers, and to put a single payer on the demand side. Picture here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebdZdj7cvMU

(List of reasons why the provider-patient relationship is not a market transaction is given from time 3:40 to 5:40.)

Respond

Would you really give Trump this kind of power?

In the end, one's ability to vote with one's feet/dollar is the only thing the little guy can rely upon.

Respond

Even Trump dares not touch Social Security and Medicare, and Congressional Republicans may pay in some districts for reducing ACA funding. Because one's ability to vote in the next election is also a deciding factor.

Respond

It's markets all the way down, friend. The ACA has gotten so distorted that people are simply opting out. Lots of things would be clarified if people had to get their own checkbooks out. Americans just need to grow the eff up.

A society that claims a right to abortion and physician-assisted suicide has no business insisting that we must spend billions in OPM to keep medically fragile people alive.

Respond

"Medically Fragile People" - you might want to look into premature babies and those costs. Not to mention the costs incurred by inducing fertility and whether those are being completely covered by the folks wanting the babies. By the way I would consider this a "best of MR" post.

Respond

"There are no solutions, only trade offs." - Thomas Sowell

Respond

I am pretty sure that when you have become medically fragile, we will help you too.

Respond

i’m not familiar with the expression “oh ass hundred”

Respond

In military parlance, 1am is called "oh-one-hundred". "Oh-ass-hundred" would be the middle of the night.

Respond

Isn't there a pretty large portion of folks where the incentives are aligned? High deductible/HSA plans are increasingly common. The last few employer plans I've had have offered nothing else. At least for the first 6k or so (and outside of when the years in which our children were born, I don't believe we've ever exceeded it) the cost passes directly to the patient.

It's also the case that I can, somehow, get an upfront quoted price on even fairly involved cosmetic surgery or all kinds of dental procedures, but not on comparatively minor and low risk medical surgeries and procedures.

True story, a month or so ago, wife took middle child to an in-network urgent care facility to check out a rapid onset full body rash (conclusion, delayed medication reaction to some antibiotics he'd already finished taking earlier for a persistent ear infection, which was also our guess). On the way out they noted he'd had a mild fever when they checked him out and suggested running rapid flu/rsv/covid test. My wife is entirely too trusting of doctors and acquiesced. There was no medical reason to run the test, no outcome of the test was going to influence treatment in any way. They billed $650 for the visit (seems steep, but ok, it's urgent care, there's overhead, we live in an expensive area, blah, blah, blah), and ** $790 ** for the medically irrelevant test. I can buy the same test over the counter for <$15 from CVS (and the actual manufacturing cost is $1-$2 iirc). What's the limiting factor? What kind of implied, price unseen, contract allows for that level of disconnect. Haven't met our deductible for the year so the entire cost is being billed to us.

It also seems like more and more of basic health care is opting out of the whole system and going cash. Cash-pay telehealth, minute clinic type, Hims/Hers setups etc. Something like 1 out of 8 Americans is taking a GLP-1 drug and a huge portion are paying cash (yes they are using compounding pharmacies to defect on the US subsidizing the worlds pharma research, but even sans that it's simpler and cheaper to manage your chronic conditions through such means)

Respond

Over a long enough time frame, the way to get healthcare costs down is be able to take care of almost everything with a pill or a shot so that surgery is very rare, and so that people are healthy up until the day that they drop dead.

Respond

I suppose, but there is no guarantee that these pills and shots will be cheap. In cancer treatment, there is a trend toward customized treatments based on the individual's genetics and the precise characteristics of their cancer. I believe some of these treatments run into the six and even seven figures.

If treating cancer at the time it becomes deadly is too expensive, you are left with screening, which has its own problems. Prostate cancer screening consists of relatively cheap tests to start but escalates from there (with an unfortunate number of false positives) to ultrasounds, MRIs and biopsies. Colon cancer is on the rise among young Americans so the guidelines shifted to start routine colonoscopies earlier. Cervical cancer has become close to being cured among women who got Gardisil before they became sexually active but that is the special case of a cancer being caused by a virus.

Respond

Good Luck reforming this,
May the odds forever be in your favor.
Let us pray.

The 10 Labors of Hercules
Eurystheus, prompted by Hera, designed the labors to be "impossible" in the hopes that Hercules would die trying to complete them. Designed them as suicide missions.
Lethal Challenges, Impossible Logistics, Divine Traps, Changing the Rules/Moving the Goal Posts.

Respond

-Emily Dickinson

“Hope” is the thing with feathers -
That perches in the soul -
And sings the tune without the words -
And never stops - at all -

And sweetest - in the Gale - is heard -
And sore must be the storm -
That could abash the little Bird
That kept so many warm -

I’ve heard it in the chillest land -
And on the strangest Sea -
Yet - never - in Extremity,
It asked a crumb - of me.

Respond

That's a lot of words to say that third-party payment is the original sin of the healthcare system.

Respond

The original sin might be our 4th party payment system i.e., your pre-paid medical plan is selected/purchased by your employer.

Or even 5th party i.e., Government tax benefits for employer-selected pre-paid medical plan.

Respond

Using an insurance model to cover health care expenses is like buying fire insurance on your home when it is 100% certain all homes will burn to the ground in 70-115 years.

Respond

@sure shout out to MR reading general surgeons - “often wrong , never unsure” - there are dozens of us

Respond

Most docors have no idea how much anything medical cost and it is difficult for them to find out
That includes a visit, hospital be, ICU, CT scan, lab test , etc,
They are taught to order anything relavant to increase accuracy and good results. Administrtators make most profits from tests and surgery, loose from labor costs.

Respond

Somehow other countries get equal or better results cheaper.

Price transparency should make some costs (shoppable procedures) cheaper, no?

Otherwise, I’m guessing (as writer implies) the system can’t be fixed from inside the system. It needs simplified, centralized rules (?).

Respond

I keep hearing that other countries "get better results for less money." Usually (always?) they define better results as longer life spans. Longer life spans are in the aggregate more due to patient behaviors than to the quality of the health care system. Americans, me included, have awful health behaviors.

Respond

Some people look at life expectancy but there is a lot of literature looking at outcomes both by diagnosis and procedure. So, for example, you can compare outcomes for lung cancer in the US vs Germany. Do note that you have to understand what the different outcome metrics mean. For example it's possible to have a superior 5 year survival rate from a given cancer but have overall worse outcomes.

Steve

Respond

I think it was celeb Doctor Drew Pinsky who said that Americans have the right to slowly kill themselves with untreated drug, alcohol, and other addictions. And when they spiral down to homeless tweaker camps, they'll cost taxpayers 5-figure annual ER bills until dead.

Respond

Better results= better (more) access to care, health span, preventable mortality, infant mortality, chronic disease management, equity (which America is terrible at, but it's medicine for the rich is #1).

It's not just dumb lifestyle choices. It's the crusty layers of bureaucracy adding to admin costs, profit-taking, relatively higher labor wages, legalistic culture, fragmented systems / care. No rich country spends as much of its GDP on health care as America.

Most people in most developed countries do not face bankruptcy or massive financial risk or burden for health care--but they're not as good for very rich people as the U.S.

Respond

At least in part, it's because other countries don't pay for ineffective treatments. If you want that, you need to accept that people may be told the treatment they read about isn't effective, or costs a million dollars for only one month of extra life, and is therefore not covered.

Respond

Also they don't pay for effective, but moderately to very expensive treatments. Or the waiting times for effective treatments are so long that they are relatively useless (or patients mortgage the house and pay private.)

Respond

The bigger thing is not the treament themselves but the mileiu under which they are happening.

Take an old standbye, the Whipple procedure. This is the surgical procedure indicated for a lot of pancreatic cancers. It has high intrinsic mortality and many of the patients getting them have single digit month life expectancies (sometimes people go long with a cure, most often they don't).

This is actually the same standard of care for the US, UK, and Germany for a lot of cancers if I understand things correctly.

So why does a Whipple in the US cost more than in the UK?

Well for a start, the UK is 51st state level poor for a lot of comparison metrics. Hourly wages reflect this.

Worse, the US healthcare system has to bid against not just a global financial industry in London/New York, but also against global software, internet, and aerospace companies to name but a few options.

We also require most everyone to be trained for longer than the Brits (e.g. an MBBS is typically 4 or 5 years while an MD typically runs around 8) which both selects more for things like higher amounts of gratification delay potential and forces more lifetime compensation into fewer working years.

We then require more of them. Typically NHS staffing for things like PACU, SICU, or a surgical floor are much lighter on the body count than the US.

Then we have the social work aspect, where American hospitals end up providing a lot of social services that are provided in the UK by other, non-healthy care entitites.

Then Americans demand not just more timely care, but also nicer rooms, more options for everything, and far more compliance burdens (e.g. multiple NHS trusts have had patients die over the last decade largely from neglect; the documentation I have read is hilariously light and I cannot imagine anyone over hear not getting multiple rounds of highly costly snap inspections by the Joint Commission et al.)

Americans want hospitals to be 3 star experiences. Minimum staffing requirements in places like CA and MA are multiplicatively more costly than a lot of European norms.

Anybody who says "be more like Europe" and doesn't come with a long list of people to fire simply isn't being serious.

Respond

Yet their outcomes are generally on par with ours and they all cost a lot less AND they generally insure everyone. If you have followed the literature eon this issue for a long time you also know that it's largely, but not entirely , not true. For example the UK does not deny dialysis to older people. When it is true, like with waiting times it's usually a conscious choice to hold down costs and for procedures that have an elective component. Waiting times for urgent care are generally on par with US.

So would Americans be willing to pay 20%-30% less in health care costs if they had to wait an extra 6 months to get their hip replacement or cataract surgery or only have 4 treatment options for their cancer instead of 6, knowing that they all have equivalent outcomes?

Steve

Respond

Americans will not accept double occupancy rooms for a significant reduction in costs, I am highly doubtful they would take your deal.

Certainly we dropped a few billion on building a new hospital in the burbs a while back precisely because the patients with good insurance wanted a lobby with accent pieces, a manicured lawn, and 3 star hotel quality.

And then there are the mandates, which granted are state level things, but places like CA and MA place some pretty heavy staffing burdens on. It would be illegal to staff a hospital there with NHS norms.

The American public wants medicine delivered quickly and in style. They don't want people to pay more when they have made poor decisions that increased health risks. And they don't want to get large bills when they are "unlucky". They also want folks with severe social problems (e.g. the homeless, non-English speakers, IVDUs, and the rest) to be able to navigate and utilize the healthcare system even with zero ability to pay. There isn't a cheap option out there.

Respond

Prioritising choice and access does not work without the balance of control of costs by those making the choice, and giving producers to tailor their production towards consumer choice. Even if this choice is just as loose as "I don't really understand this stuff, but I'm pretty sure that this insurer is 'gold plating' standards of care more than I actually need, so I'm going to switch to one with lower prices and more cost controls". (Along with some basic level of regulation focused on consumer protections and avoiding "Hah, ya, didn't read the fine print in the Terms of Use!" behaviour).

That said, my impression from previous discussions on here though (and AI), though is that the US can to some extent manage these things, but only through insanely legalistic, bureaucratic and fragmented processes, which impose very high costs themselves.

One idea I've found interesting recently is about Common Law jurisdiction cost diseases on construction, which some have argued is a lot broader than any of the specifics on how CLJs implement regulation of construction. On this topic, wondering if in the that's extended to medicine, while other CLJs have managed to swerve this. Great places to settle your corporate disputes or list your companies or book your profits, and maybe not so great places to actually do stuff?

At least in the case of medical, from any such cost disease you actually get some kind of some outputs in terms of effectively a subsidy to medical R&D. But then I think maybe even then that could be imposing some kind of global high cost pressure on medical R&D in general, where lots of countries exit trials and R&D as the effective subsidy by the US could push up the cost and making it too hard for smaller and less wealthy (nominal terms) countries to compete for researchers and resources. So even then it might be counterproductive to global action to actually producing more improvements / better treatments and just washes up as rents, losses and higher price levels.

Respond

Which treatments are these?

Please provide me the ICD-10/CPT combos, the drug names, or procedure names that would generate say $200 billion in savings (e.g. ~2% total savings).

Like we could nuke the entire pharmaceutical budget to *zero* and it would amount to a measely 10% change in healthcare expenses in the US if we just stole the finished products at gunpoint.

So do tell, what are these treatments and procedures of which you speak?

Respond

Otherwise known as "Death Panels" but you're a right wing extremist crazy if you mention that. Or Sarah Palin.

Respond

Other countries start with cheaper patients who are less prone to driving high annual mileage at high speeds, get into highly violent physical altercations less frequently (Americans kill Americans at higher rates *excluding when they use guns* than Brits kill Brits *including when they use guns*), are less obese, do fewer drugs, and as an upshot abort away a huge amount of life expectancy reduction by terminating syndromic pregnancies.

In terms of how they deliver medical care, good luck. European nurse staffing norms are flat illegal in California, for instance.

Respond

These countries largely have centralized decision-making about what (often public) insurance pays and how much. The last major study about U.S. health care spending showed that it was the quantity of health services rather than the price per service that accounted for the high level of spending in the U.S.

Once you get past the basics, a lot of medicine strikes me as risk management. Patient X looks like they might be at slightly higher risk of condition A. Do you order a bunch of expensive tests which might turn up more worrying indicators that lead to yet more tests? Do you prescribe 4 different premium-price prescription drugs that may reduce the risk of death and disability? Or do you recommend "watchful waiting"? In my experience as a patient, opinions on these can vary wildly and things that were seemingly consensus a few decades ago (universal prostate cancer screening for all men over 40) now seem to come with lots of hedging and somewhat embarrassed confessions that the evidence for asymptomatic screening is problematic.

Scientific opinions can and should change but, to have cost control, you almost inevitably need some institution to make the final call on what is reasonable or medically necessary care and to start denying claims for procedures that all outside the standard. Any such institution will get some things wrong and make controversial decisions.

Respond

This is wrong. Americans pay more both because we use more health care and the costs of that care, especially physicians and drugs, are higher.

Respond

If as the OP suggests you have this system where nobody really knows what anything costs and how much of it is delivered, can we really estimate any of these factors at all?

Respond

Centralized rules... Despite vast piles of evidence to the contrary, people are gonna believe what they will about the efficiency and effectiveness of "centralized decision making". And with few exceptions, their "answer" to the problems with centralization is: more centralization.

Respond

Republicans are the party of the status quo even when the status quo is asinine. We currently pay what amounts to a VAT to fund our health care system and the spending is controlled by the state government and the largest employers in the state. So in America every purchase of a good or service includes the costs of someone else’s health care…that means the people with the best health care are the people that can most easily pass along the costs to others. If you can’t spread the costs around then you are screwed.

Respond

> there is a different rate if you have medical trainees involved

Higher or lower?

Respond

At some point hopefully we realize that the only rational market entity that is suited to evaluate and manage costs, negotiate prices and manage working relationships is at the level of the hospital, or hospital group. Rather than insurance, patients should be choosing a subscription level and a la cart add ons. Hospitals would answer to the community.

The current architecture of relationships is incapable of controlling costs.

Respond

All great points, but no one has mentioned the fact that nearly all network participation agreements provide for reimbursement at XX% of Medicare. Yes, pricing for a given claim is complicated (even determining whether the claim gets denied, or partially denied, is complicated), but payors know who the high-cost and low-cost providers are, and it's possible to get that information to consumers.

Respond

I don't have Sure's experience, but I've seen enough to know that pricing transparency is a punchline, not a serious solution to anything in healthcare because it's not even really feasible. I think the only way forward is to manage expectations. If you're between 18 and 67 it should be impossible to see a doctor unless you're dying or you got your arm cut off. Instead of a PCP, health insurance should give you a health case manager with a bachelor's degree and a certificate who, depending on your ailment, will direct you to a dentist, an optometrist, a personal trainer, a nutritionist, a licensed therapist, or a chiropractor.

Respond

You have it exactly backwards. Geriatric medicine is a black hole of waste.

Respond

You're never going to take away Medicare because old people vote and young people feel sorry for them. Let's control costs where we can.

Respond

I have personal knowledge of a man worth millions of dollars who uses Medicare for his substantial medical services (he relies on a gastrotomy tube). I would not be surprised at some point to see old people's houses burned down.

I suggest the social contract could be greatly strengthened by Medicare4All. It would also substantially increase workforce mobility.

Respond

For those who want to think of this in terms of an over arching structural problem which appears in other areas like the recent rampant fraud in Minnesota, consider reading my post: https://home-economic.com/2026/04/27/architectural-weaknesses-make-buildings-fall-down/

Respond

Dartmouth has good research showing corporations , administrators, and some doctors overcharge

Respond

Health Care costs less and outcomes are better in other countries. I think we could copy what they do to solve this problem. We need the political will.

Respond

This answer assumes people are fungible. I am increasingly inclined to suspect, after years working in healthcare, that part of the problem is that they are not. I think part of the problem of healthcare costs may be cultural; when a doctor gives an American news they don't want to hear, their response is

1. That's not what the internet said when I Googled it.
2. I have a lawyer.

Is this also true in, say, Sweden? i don't know. But I'm pretty sure Sweden has fewer lawyers, and I didn't hear about them using worm pills and refusing to mask, social distance, or quarantine during covid. We are the land of the free, we are bold individuals, and our stock market soars and we have all the entrepreneurs and we engage in various asinine and obnoxious behaviors that really drive up the cost of healthcare. Not going to get into them now, I'll have to get kids to bed at some point tonight.

Saying that we need to copy some other country's system is kind of like saying that Afghanistan just needs to become a liberal democracy. In a sense, this is true. But it's not very helpful advice in practice.

Respond

I appreciate this post. A varied set of interests through a series of negotiations created a complex pricing structure.

It makes medical pricing and the political debates around it seem another example of the decreased status of conservatism in favor of the right-wing version of socialism that is currently enjoying popularity. Everyone thinks they're going to find a better way, disrupt the system, and replace it with something simpler.

Respond

So healthcare is so expensive because the system is designed by lawyers. Figures. Maybe possibly you know someday consider not having such a crazy tort system. As with vaccines it's certainly doable to compensate people who have been injured in some way, Rather than restricting compensation to people who have the stomach for crazy lawsuits Where the norm is to claim crazy high amounts of money and then respond to crazy lowball offers and spend 6 years getting to the number pretty much everybody could have guessed it would end up being.

Now tell me why I have to wait 8 months to see a Neurologist when I'm in pain right now.

Respond

Medicare boffins decided to stiff neurologists and brain surgeons so they could overpay the mechanic that replaces your knee

Respond

Recently I had a medical issue arise. This motivated me to investigate emergency medical economics. In my investigation I have found it genuinely surprising how minimal the cost would be for an insurance premium that covered a near complete range of expected emergency medicine needs for healthy people. For those without existing medical conditions and excluding trauma medicine apparently it would be only ~$20 per person per year with community rating. Potentially that could be a way to debundle medical care and would remove some of the highly demand inelastic features of medicine.

Respond

Sure seems to have a view from the top of the system, and to be substantially better informed than me re: what makes it expensive. I view it from the bedside (I'm a respiratory therapist). Scattered points that I haven't made in replies to other replies already re: the cost of healthcare:

1. I endorse what Sure said about Americans making bad choices. I think of them as "the fourth group." When we think of people who go to the hospital, we picture old people, unlucky people, and pregnant women. The fourth group, which is quite large, consists of people who just suck at life. They make bad decisions, over and over again, and refuse to learn from them, and many of them don't even have their feces sufficiently aggregated to have health insurance so in effect EVERYONE is paying for the continuous effort to keep them from dying (this time). This group includes druggies, alcoholics, and massive long-term smokers, but also bums, the grossly dysfunctional but not technically homeless, people who weight more than 300 pounds but do not have a show on TLC yet, violent criminals, and sundry unhealthily-skeptic kooks.

2. I think this is an enormous multifaceted problem but most or all of it is downstream from our having developed the pernicious habit of offloading all costs onto a paid middleman misleadingly labeled "insurance," which we illogically expect to save us money in the long run, and then allowing "insurance" to hide all the costs we don't want to deal with, and then getting sometimes-homicidally enraged when this doesn't work because we pay "insurance" all that money and somehow they do not pay the other guys more than we paid them. As alluded to in another reply, I think we as Americans are uniquely disposed to look at a commons and say, "hmm, I wonder how much tragedy that commons can take before it collapses in screaming agony."

3. I sometimes really wish we had death panels. Sarah Palin's masterful scaremonger relied on the implicit belief that families will regularly choose what is right for their loved one. This is sometimes--but not always!--true when they have a really good, healthy relationship with their families. People who wind up with serious health problems often don't, because the same character defects which often produce serious health problems (see "the fourth group") also strain relationships. Then the family ... look, it gets bad, and very frequently letting someone die would be better, but it's a whole thing. At any given time I'd say maybe a third of the ventilator patients in my ICU are "waiting on the family" cases. We literally say that in rounds and everyone shrugs. Family can't accept that Uncle Bob ain't coming back, so we play chicken and rack up a bill until they break under the strain. Unless the patient is brain dead right down past the medulla, or they code so hard the doc simply cannot bring them back, we have no choice.

Could say more, but that will do for now.

Respond

Informative, but he is trying to use all the data as a bludgeon. Do you think the supply chains and variabilities that go into making an Iphone are any less complicated? I doubt it, and yet somehow we all know how much one costs....Saying the medical care industry is "complicated" is not an excuse for throwing our hands up at reform efforts.

Respond

Now tell me how much the NEXT Iphone will be priced at. Probably pretty much the same.... Unless the market changes and people no longer buy such phones. Or tariffs interfere. Or the market structure of buying them on plan changes.
The IPhone has a fixed price because almost all the work has already been DONE. It's a WIDGET at this point. "Widget" surgery done by robots with robot nurses also has a fixed well known price.

Respond

Here in Spain, there's univeesal public health service. You just go (usually walking) to see your assigned nurse or doctor when you want or need to. The population is healthier and it costs WAY less than the American healthcare scam. What a load of irrelevant jargon is Tyler's post.

Respond

90 days wait time to see a specialist in Spain. 4 months wait time for non urgent surgery. (https://spainimmigration.ca/private-vs-public-navigating-specialist-waiting-times-in-spain/#:~:text=First%20Specialist%20Consultation:%20The%20average,in%20resource%20allocation%20and%20demand.)

4 months for an MRI, 5 months for a colonoscopy.

I thought I had it bad when I had to wait 2 weeks to see my ankle specialist and i was ae to get an MRI within a week of the doctor ordering one.

Spanish are healthier because of diet and activity levels... Not their healthcare system (which apparently 28% of people are using private insurance to avoid long wait times).

And US healthcare is messed up due to a lot of government involvement.

Respond

What is the youngest premature birth child you know?
How many Downs Syndrome children are at your local school?
How many people do you know who use an electric wheel chair?
How many alcohol fetal syndrome children do you know?
I know multiple in each category and I don't work in healthcare.
The earliest premi child I know is 10 weeks? Maybe 9 weeks.

Respond

20% of health costs are from high insurance overhead, which is capped at 20-25%. European health insurance and Medicare are limited to only 5%, but Americans have to pay for multiple forms, rejects, extra billing cllerks, CEOs and executives making $1-50mil.
Another 20% of costs are due to overdiagnosos and overtreatment to play it safe (and not get sued) and for corporations which own most doctor's practices to make as large a profit as allowed.
Medical student have $400k in debtand stiil need another 3-8 years of specialty training. They tend to go into specialties, leaving a shortage of cheaper primary care doctors.
Doctors main complaints are about all the documentation that takes 30% of their time and most recommend thier chuldren to avoid this career.
It is easier to get rich in computers or finance.
The best solution in Medicare for all. The next best is nation health care as in Scandinavi, Japan, Canada, or Britain, which costs 20-40% less tha the USA

Respond

"as in Scandinavia, Japan, Canada, or Britain"

For Gawd's sake don't copy the NHS. Even your worst enemy wouldn't wish that on you.

Respond

Should price transparent, flat rate, ambulatory surgery centers like the Surgery Center of Oklahoma be driven out of business?

Their business model is effectively criminal in states like NY. Should doctors and patients who voluntarily engage in such transactions be prosecuted, fined, and jailed? If so, how much and how long?

Respond

20% cost for defensive medicine? Where do you get that number? The developed nations with universal healthcare also tend to have longer lifespans than the USA.

Respond

IHS has no insurance overhead. It is full Beveridge. Let me know if you have any data showing it is cheaper to operate than a standard (not-)for-profit hospital system with basic insurance setups.

Respond
Respond

Add Comment