I've always thought that my informed consent should also apply to cost of procedure - I have a right to say "NO" to something in the medical establishment. And had I known the price and the success rate, I would have said "No".
Now, I'm not asking "What is my exact rate?", although that would indeed be nice. But given minimal complications, I should be able to get a range of what to expect.
They also didn't understand why anyone would even ask the question. They kept saying, "for patients that can't afford to pay we usually work out a payment plan." They didn't understand that I could afford anything and that was the problem. I can write a seven figure check which is why I'm careful not to open myself up to that kind of liability.
It's ridiculous, and it should be illegal. At the time, my reason for visiting was a condition that required treatment, so not going to the doctors really wasn't an option. But the inability to even begin to determine what I'm going to pay is ridiculous.
(I did this after a prior visit to a different doctor stiff'd me something like $3k for the use of what amounts to glorified camera. A camera whose photos I never obtained, despite asking for them — to which the doctor replied "we've never had anyone ever ask for that" — i.e., for their medical records. I could understand that medical-grade cameras might not be cheap, but at $3k per use, my gut says money is raining from the sky.)
They can't just ask about price while unconcious.
According to the article, ~50% of hospital admissions today go through the ER.
Further, it shouldn't be necessary for people to be making financial decisions in the middle of medical emergencies, even if it was easy.
there are all sorts of folks using ERs for non-emergency issues, simply because ERs are required to treat everyone.
both of my trips to the ER (subluxed knee; particulate matter lodged in my eye) would've been amenable to at least a few moments of financial consideration, had any information been available to me.