Hacker News Reader

There's some nuance here: It might be that a rational insurance provider encourages their clients to do regular checkups for conditions that can be caught early and treated at a much lower cost.

Now, the parent comment still is correct that that cost would have to be covered by premiums, but the premiums should still be equal or lower than they were if they didn't provide the checkups.

In effect, in such cases the insurer could market the regular checkup as a benefit, but rationally if they could they'd rather make the checkups a policy obligation to preserve their margins. This is what aligned incentives looks like :)

There's some nuance here: It might be that a rational insurance provider encourages their clients to do regular checkups for conditions that can be caught early and treated at a much lower cost.

I'm a member of Kaiser HMO, and they do just that -- they regularly notify me of screening tests I should be doing and they offer several ways to contact my doctor without actually seeing my doctor.

If I'm not sure I need to go in to see him for that lump on my toe, I can call a triage nurse for advice, set up a phone call appointment with my doctor, or do a video chat with him.

For my last annual checkup, my doctor emailed me, asked me to go in for some bloodwork, then a few days later, I went to visit the doctor and we talked over the results while he conducted the physical.

I know some people don't like Kaiser, but I've had only good experiences with the system, and I love their electronic records system - I can view test results online, and if I'm referred to another doctor, the other doctor has instant access to my records.

I'm not sure I agree. If my insurance is on the hook for prostate cancer treatment, then they may expect a prostate exam to save them money, in which case they would have an incentive to pay for it.

Precisely why healthcare insurance is different.

Preventative health saves more resources than reactive health (i.e. catching cancer early as opposed to when it display symptoms). One of the big problems of healthcare insurance in the U.S. is treating it like car insurance - a numbers game of reactions to accidents.

Some insurance policies cover 100% of annual checkups but it still trains people to avoid going to the hospital.

Wouldn't insurance companies want people to get preventative care over reactive care, to lower their own operating costs? I know that Cigna is a big proponent of this, but I can't think of any others that do the same.

It's not that different, though. Preventative measures show up in many insurance contexts (although I guess usually as a premium discount, not as being paid for by the insurer): fire alarms, and training for motorcyclists and pilots, come to mind.

Except your other insurers do not pay for fire alarms, oil changes, etc., which usually don't cost hundreds to thousands of dollars each year.

>If regular, predictable events are covered, it is not insurance. Regular, predictable events are not insurable.

The problem in the U.S. is that we have this bizarre system where hospitals charge exorbitant prices and then insurers haggle them down to something halfway sane. So when you're paying for "insurance" you're (ideally) getting both catastrophic coverage (i.e. actual insurance) as well as access to a cartel that negotiates prices down from impossible heights on your behalf -- even for routine care.

Since most people who regularly access medical care do so through these cartels, care providers have no incentive to make care more affordable than what they can get away with -- and insurers have no incentive to allow the price to drop either, since people being able to afford care outside the cartels would ultimately undercut their profits.

This system is fundamentally unworkable. There's really no way to detangle the perverse incentives here in a way that will bring prices down to a level comparable with single payer healthcare.

The ultimate reason behind hospitals attempting to charge exorbitant prices is due to Medicare and Medicaid paying under cost for services. Hospitals need to make that difference up somewhere. Surprisingly, if you remove the profit hospitals make on ancillary services like the gift shop, parking fees and investment income, they are losing money.

Isn't the overly-litigious nature of the U.S.A also why costs are so high?

The malpractice insurance that docs and hospitals need to carry in order to defend themselves should they be sued is passed onto consumers in the form of higher medical costs.

Or at least that's how someone once explained it to me. Is that not also a contributing factor?

Anybody in the entire health care system can point their finger at someone else and claim that they're the ones who are gouging us. I suspect that they're all gouging us.

One thing I've read is that states with caps on malpractice claims do not have lower medical costs.

"overly-litigious" would need to be cited in my opinion. What is "overly"?

That can't be true. They are not required to accept Medicare or Medicaid. If it was a losing offer they just wouldn't accept it.

"Payment rates for Medicare and Medicaid, with the exception of managed care plans, are set by law rather than through a negotiation process, as with private insurers. These payment rates are currently set below the costs of providing care, resulting in underpayment. Payments made by managed care plans contracting with the Medicare and Medicaid programs are generally negotiated with the hospital.

Hospital participation in Medicare and Medicaid is voluntary. However, as a condition for receiving federal tax exemption for providing health care to the community, not-for-profit hospitals are required to care for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Also, Medicare and Medicaid account for more than 60 percent of all care provided by hospitals. Consequently, very few hospitals can elect not to participate in Medicare and Medicaid."

Source (American Hospital Association, December 2016): http://www.aha.org/content/16/medicaremedicaidunderpmt.pdf (Sorry it's a PDF)

Edit: updated from 2010 reference to 2016 reference

That quote is misleading because it implies that the cost of care is static, that it's not also heavily influenced by spending choices made by the hospital that don't affect patient outcomes. Or heavily influenced by the consequences of the broken healthcare system, like the overuse of emergency rooms by people who can't afford to see a doctor.

Hospitals could easily afford to provide care at Medicare/Medicaid rates — if they're willing to have less impressive lobbies, marketing materials, corporate facilities and shareholder profits. Citation: all other first world countries.

> shareholder profits

Do intelligent people ever go to for-profit hospitals? I'd group those with for-profit universities and for-profit prisons as "nope, not touching that, stay as far away as possible and hope they all disappear".

non-profit hospitals and non-profit universities have had exorbitant price increases in the last few decades so they aren't doing any better

Maybe, but for the same expense I'd rather go to (non-profit) Harvard than (for-profit) Trump University.

All the best universities are non-profit, for the obvious reason that it allows them to keep massive endowments, which are spent on better education instead of being paid out to investors.

No matter your intelligence, if you're having a heart attack, you go to the nearest hospital, whatever its tax status may be.

Okay, but apart from emergencies, why would anyone go to a hospital whose goal is profit when all the best research hospitals are non-profit?

Your tax status doesn't necessarily indicate what your goals are. SpaceX and Tesla are for-profit and the Susan G Komen foundation is non-profit.

But do you have any actual counter-examples to "all the best research hospitals are non-profit"?

Do you have any price comparisons between for-profit and non-profit hospitals?

It's because in addition to the reimbursement, hospitals are paid a bonus fee by US taxpayers called a DSH to subsidize the subsidies. This serves to incentivize providers not to drop Medicare/Medicaid patients and also covers up the losses incurred.

More info: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Paymen...

Good commentary about upcoming changes that endanger these programs: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170626/NEWS/170629...

Hospitals charge high prices because they can. They are often local monopolies, and behave accordingly. And with an utter lack of price transparency, which makes the idea that patients could shop around a joke.

The ultimate reason behind hospitals attempting to charge exorbitant prices is that you have no choice but to pay.

There is a simple reason for the "cartel": it's called moral hazard.

You have the monopsony that comes from collective buying power on the one hand. (An argument for SINGLE PAYER insurance.)

On the other you have the usual moral hazard which says, if the customer ain't paying, try to charge as much as possible.

So it's this game of bigger and bigger armies. Same as when countries can't make a peace deal where neighborhoods and individuals long ago could have. A single person can torpedo a deal. It's all or nothing.

It's also why some British bureaucrats in the NHS face the choice of dropping coverage for a drug because the company just won't play ball and charge a low enough price. When are you willing to walk away when you represent a lot of people??

> If someone is selling "insurance" for those things, you can be certain that you're paying 100% of the cost somewhere.

Nope; probably more like 150%. Except I hear that in America, those insurers can get a deal for you for the routine stuff compared to someone un-"insured". Pretty f'ed up.

Payors are healthcare wholesalers. They can buy health services from physicians and facilities at about a third to a tenth of the cost you can because: 1) It's not life or death for them; and 2) They can buy in bulk

> Agreed. If regular, predictable events are covered, it is not insurance. Regular, predictable events are not insurable

Ignoring the US specific stuff, there's a reason that my private health insurance basically covers a regular medical screening - and it's not because the cost is in the premium. It's because that preventative strategy allowed them to reduce the size of claims from people who otherwise would find problems later and those would be more expensive.

Imagine, if you will, a car insurer who can't turn around and refuse to pay out on claims where the car hadn't been serviced in 5 years. The tyres are bald, the break pads worn, etc. Now imagine that they offer a yearly basic road-worthiness check for free each year. They'll sell more policies (because it's free stuff, and they care) and have fewer claims caused by poorly maintained cars.

The costs are being paid, clearly, but they come in part from changes in the claim profile that you would be paying for otherwise.