The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
FAQ    Search

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 615 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 ... 31  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Tue July 31, 2018 6:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Posts: 8888
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
Bi_3 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:

Quote:
The Mercatus study takes issue with a key cost-saving feature of the plan — that hospitals and doctors will accept payment based on lower Medicare rates for all their patients.
This seems like the whole crux of the plan. What does the the study do for these cost estimates?


It’s cagey about it, but:

“M4A would markedly increase the demand for healthcare services while simultaneously cutting payments to providers by more than 40 percent, reducing payments to levels that are lower on average than providers’ current costs of providing care. It cannot be known how much providers will react to these losses by reducing the availabil- ity of existing health services, the quality of such services, or both.”

There is an assumption in most of single payer plans that the market would adjust to Medicare/Medicaid rates by elimination of the insurance middleman, but they are short on details of how.
does anything attempt to explain that such a system would mean that all patient services would be paid, therefore overall costs would have to come down bc there wouldn't be any deferred cost placed on insured patients (which is what currently creates the pricing mystery)? Likewise, is there any mention that by having everyone insured at younger ages, the cost of care at advanced age should be reduced bc people would be healthier? Every doctor I get the chance to speak with (which is many bc it's my wife's field) always emphasizes the value of preventative care.


I think this assumption is part of what the study is disputing, but I did not read the whole thing and am by no means an expert on this topic.

It only mentions this:

"For example, in 2014, hospitals were reimbursed just 89% of their costs of treating Medicare patients and 90% of their costs of treating Medicaid patients -- losses that were offset by hospitals collecting private insurance reimbursement rates equaling 144% of their costs."

It then jumps to say that if every patient was only covered at medicare rates then all hospitals would run negative, but the author ignores the gap that currently exists for unpaid patient services. So my question still remains, which this study didn't/couldn't answer, but what would such a plan do for hospitals overall if (1) all services were paid in full & on time; and (2) if more and more patients were getting preventative care/scans/tests, as oppose to emergent care (which is much more expensive)?

And like McP pointed out, the study finds that overall M4A would reduce costs from what they're expected to be without a change to the system.


Reducing an estimated $10B from an estimated $3,200B is not significant enough to be a point in this debate and the external costs to the economic structure of the country might not even be estimable.


But your quote above misses an important point from this and nearly every study on the topic, that Medicare rates are too low to be profitable for most hospitals and doctors. So even if they were being paid 100% of the time, they would still be losing money on most interactions:

Image


Now take those numbers and magnify across the entire population...

I think that still avoids the point. If the prices aren't inflated due to non-payers (those without any coverage that get treatment) and over-payers (those with insurance that pays a higher rate to attempt to mitigate the prior group's unpaid bills), then M4A is the only price no matter where you go and it's 100% covered.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Tue July 31, 2018 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Posts: 8888
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
4/5 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
4/5 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
(2) if more and more patients were getting preventative care/scans/tests, as oppose to emergent care (which is much more expensive)?

That sounds good, but I'd be concerned that increased tests and screening would lead to more false positives and more treatment for conditions that wouldn't have affected the person's quality of life had they not been discovered. I imagine that this in turn could lead to more not less treatment.

This is true, but earlier treatment will (in most instances) be less costly than an individual's system failure later on down the line. As I've been told, the two biggest drivers of absurd costs within the current US system of medicine is unnecessary emergency care and caring for the elderly.

Of course I agree that earlier treatment is usually less costly. On an individual level that's certainly true but I wonder if it still holds for society as a whole if you greatly increase the preventative/testing/screening, etc. across the board. I'm just thinking out loud, I don't have any data I'm referring to. It would seem to me that at some point that so much could be spent on the upfront preventative stuff on healthy people that it could outweigh the decreases in emergency care. I have no idea where that threshold would be, but it seems like it should likely exist at some point.
I get it, and it's a good question, but the sense I get from friends is that improving things upstream (younger ages more regularly and detecting problems earlier) saves significant money.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Tue July 31, 2018 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Looks Like a Cat
 Profile

Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm
Posts: 14139
elliseamos wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:

I think this assumption is part of what the study is disputing, but I did not read the whole thing and am by no means an expert on this topic.

It only mentions this:

"For example, in 2014, hospitals were reimbursed just 89% of their costs of treating Medicare patients and 90% of their costs of treating Medicaid patients -- losses that were offset by hospitals collecting private insurance reimbursement rates equaling 144% of their costs."

It then jumps to say that if every patient was only covered at medicare rates then all hospitals would run negative, but the author ignores the gap that currently exists for unpaid patient services. So my question still remains, which this study didn't/couldn't answer, but what would such a plan do for hospitals overall if (1) all services were paid in full & on time; and (2) if more and more patients were getting preventative care/scans/tests, as oppose to emergent care (which is much more expensive)?

And like McP pointed out, the study finds that overall M4A would reduce costs from what they're expected to be without a change to the system.


Reducing an estimated $10B from an estimated $3,200B is not significant enough to be a point in this debate and the external costs to the economic structure of the country might not even be estimable.


But your quote above misses an important point from this and nearly every study on the topic, that Medicare rates are too low to be profitable for most hospitals and doctors. So even if they were being paid 100% of the time, they would still be losing money on most interactions:

Image


Now take those numbers and magnify across the entire population...

I think that still avoids the point. If the prices aren't inflated due to non-payers (those without any coverage that get treatment) and over-payers (those with insurance that pays a higher rate to attempt to mitigate the prior group's unpaid bills), then M4A is the only price no matter where you go and it's 100% covered.



*snipped out the middle

I think we are talking about two different things and both could be right. You are correct in that hospitals would not need to vary the prices if all patient services were reimbursed at a fixed rate and that in itself may reduce overall costs through reductions in administrative needs. My point was (and what is covered in that HBR link above) is that it doesn't matter what percentage of the patients provide reimbursement if the dollar amount of the reimbursement is below cost of providing the service, which is currently the case for both Medicare and Medicaid. If 100% of the customers are paying you 90% of what it costs you to make something, you will go bankrupt quickly (vs. charging some custs 110+% to compensate).


I'm also not sold that preventative care will reduce costs in the long term. It will certainly defer costs and improve quality of life (QoL is a different question), but the longer people live after they stop working, the more expensive their care is relative to their contributions thus placing a greater burden on the support system.

_________________
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Tue July 31, 2018 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Posts: 8888
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
Bi_3 wrote:
I think we are talking about two different things and both could be right. You are correct in that hospitals would not need to vary the prices if all patient services were reimbursed at a fixed rate and that in itself may reduce overall costs through reductions in administrative needs. My point was (and what is covered in that HBR link above) is that it doesn't matter what percentage of the patients provide reimbursement if the dollar amount of the reimbursement is below cost of providing the service, which is currently the case for both Medicare and Medicaid. If 100% of the customers are paying you 90% of what it costs you to make something, you will go bankrupt quickly (vs. charging some custs 110+% to compensate).
As far as I know/understand things (which could be wrong), the idea that "reimbursement will be below [the] cost of providing the service" is not a real concern. The price will be what it is and that price will be paid.

Bi_3 wrote:
I'm also not sold that preventative care will reduce costs in the long term. It will certainly defer costs and improve quality of life (QoL is a different question), but the longer people live after they stop working, the more expensive their care is relative to their contributions thus placing a greater burden on the support system.
Again, this is not something I'm well versed in as the majority of my opinion/position is based on conversations with doctors during dinners/cookouts, but the impression I get is what I've been saying "reducing the unnecessary emergency room patients" and "treating ailments earlier" will reduce costs for providers.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Wed August 01, 2018 12:04 am 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Posts: 8888
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
Quote:
Even using Blahous’s numbers — which may be off by roughly $15 trillion according to Himmelstein and Woolhandler’s estimates — the conclusion is plain: “Medicare for All” would cover more people, increase the quality of coverage, and cost less than is currently being spent on health care. “Blahous admits that covering the uninsured and upgrading coverage for most others could be achieved at virtually no additional cost through a single payer reform,”


https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/med ... are-wages/


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Mon August 27, 2018 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:03 pm
Posts: 9359
Location: Washington State
Image


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Mon January 14, 2019 10:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:03 pm
Posts: 9359
Location: Washington State


Image


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Sat March 09, 2019 12:13 am 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 8676
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
So you wanna hold your baby do ya? That'll cost ya. For Profit healthcare!
Image

_________________
"I'll hold your wallet while you go fuck yourself"-David Letterman


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Sat March 09, 2019 1:14 am 
Offline
User avatar
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 25816
Location: Mushroom Kingdom
bune wrote:


Image


I hope he gets a staph infection.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Mon March 25, 2019 1:24 am 
Offline
User avatar
Broken Tamborine
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:57 am
Posts: 404
Can someone help me understand something about pharmaceuticals?

Here is what I understand (I think. Please correct where I am wrong): drugs are so expensive in the US because the FDA has such a rigorous process for approval that only the big pharma companies can pay for the R&D. In order to recoup their costs, they charge outrageous prices. It doesn't seem fair, but it gets new drugs out into the market.

Other countries, who pay less for their healthcare, use price controls so people aren't paying outrageous prices. So how do they solve the R&D problem? If companies can't make their money back, why do they even bother?

Are these other countries just selling drugs made in the US? Does that mean the US consumer is paying for the R&D but the Canadians get all the benefits?

Do these other countries have the government fund the R&D? Does that just transfer the cost from the consumer to the tax base? Is that more efficient?

_________________
I'll be the one in the lobby in the green fuck me shirt. The green one.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Mon March 25, 2019 1:35 am 
Offline
User avatar
Looks Like a Cat
 Profile

Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm
Posts: 14139
Image

_________________
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Mon March 25, 2019 1:43 am 
Offline
User avatar
Broken Tamborine
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:57 am
Posts: 404
Bi_3 wrote:
Image

What would happen if we passed a law that made other countries pay a tax on US made pharmaceuticals to cover our R&D costs? (Can you put a tariff on exports?)

_________________
I'll be the one in the lobby in the green fuck me shirt. The green one.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Mon March 25, 2019 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar
Broken Tamborine
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:57 am
Posts: 404
More questions:
How does "cost control" work with a country like Canada? Does the government:
A: Not buy US made pharmaceuticals because the price is too high?
B: Subsidize the cost with tax money?
C: Buy US pharmaceuticals, but at a reduced cost to what they are sold to US consumers?

_________________
I'll be the one in the lobby in the green fuck me shirt. The green one.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Tue June 18, 2019 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Broken Tamborine
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:57 am
Posts: 404
My mother-in-law is an occupational therapy assistant. A few years ago she was telling me about how her wage was, let's say, $22/hour. She works part time. But if she works full-time, it becomes $20/hour. The reason being that she would qualify for health insurance.

Why don't more employers offer this choice now that there is a public option for health insurance? Let's say you get a 2% wage increase if you decline your benefits.

If you're the employer, you can incentivize people to go off your group insurance plan, which seems risky as it rises each year. So you probably save money.

If you're the employee, you can increase your earnings especially if your spouse has insurance through their employer. Or you can do a cost/benefit analysis of making more money vs. using insurance that isn't accepted everywhere.

If you're Obamacare, you probably get more healthy people on your plan and spread out the risk pool. This would subsidize the cost for poorer/sicker people on Obamacare.

If you're the Democrats, more people are incentivized to go on the government plan and you move closer to single payer.

What am I missing?

_________________
I'll be the one in the lobby in the green fuck me shirt. The green one.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Wed June 19, 2019 6:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 6635
Dscans wrote:
My mother-in-law is an occupational therapy assistant. A few years ago she was telling me about how her wage was, let's say, $22/hour. She works part time. But if she works full-time, it becomes $20/hour. The reason being that she would qualify for health insurance.

Why don't more employers offer this choice now that there is a public option for health insurance? Let's say you get a 2% wage increase if you decline your benefits.

If you're the employer, you can incentivize people to go off your group insurance plan, which seems risky as it rises each year. So you probably save money.

If you're the employee, you can increase your earnings especially if your spouse has insurance through their employer. Or you can do a cost/benefit analysis of making more money vs. using insurance that isn't accepted everywhere.

If you're Obamacare, you probably get more healthy people on your plan and spread out the risk pool. This would subsidize the cost for poorer/sicker people on Obamacare.

If you're the Democrats, more people are incentivized to go on the government plan and you move closer to single payer.

What am I missing?

The U.S. doesn't offer a true public option. It passed in the House version of the ACA but not the Senate version that eventually became law. Obamacare provides income-based subsidies to assist with purchasing private health insurance.

But the main issue is probably the optics. "Single mom: 'Company X made me take a pay cut to get health insurance'" type of headlines.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Wed June 19, 2019 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am
Posts: 21745
Moderate Democrats were skittish about it, and Republicans obviously were a no (their favorite attack was that it was a path to rampant socialism, natch). Joe Lieberman then threatened a filibuster if the public option wasn’t scrapped, and if I recall that kind of set off a domino effect of moderate Dems taking more open stands against it. Obama always wanted the ACA to be a bipartisan bill (lol), so with no Republican support and increasingly wavering moderates, he refused to fight for the public option.

_________________
(patriotic choking noises)


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Sat June 22, 2019 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Broken Tamborine
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:57 am
Posts: 404
I guess I'm living in my Massachusetts bubble where we have Mass Health.

The more I think about it, I'm not sure the savings will be great for every employer. It's likely that a company would have more people who get insurance through their spouse, who you would then have to pay more, than employees who decide to opt out and take the wage increase.

_________________
I'll be the one in the lobby in the green fuck me shirt. The green one.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Sat June 22, 2019 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm
Posts: 46387
Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Dscans wrote:
I guess I'm living in my Massachusetts bubble where we have Mass Health.

Signed into law by Mitt Romney, no less


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Wed June 26, 2019 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar
Looks Like a Cat
 Profile

Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm
Posts: 14139
Anyone know what the total amount of medical debt is in the US? May google skills are failing me today.

_________________
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)
PostPosted: Wed June 26, 2019 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6932
Bi_3 wrote:
Anyone know what the total amount of medical debt is in the US? May google skills are failing me today.
I tried this:

Image


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 615 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 ... 31  Next

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Thu March 28, 2024 10:09 pm