It actually would. No need for sarcasm on that comment.
Try walking into a hospital and asking how much something costs. I can tell you that you won't/can't get an answer in over 60%, specifically because the software they use does not show prices only billing codes! So the person providing care can not find out how much it costs... how are you supposed to choose?
Try calling billing once you have the correct code. I can tell you what happened in my case. I called 4 times and navigated a phone tree for 5 minutes each time waiting on hold. Why did I call 4 times... because they said that I needed to connect to a different number, but would not transfer me. Then the next person I talked to asked me to speak to yet another department. Then that department promised to send me the information (what I was being charged for code=treatment, and what the bill=$$ was for it) but after 4 weeks I hadn't received it. When I called back, I wouldn't leave until they actually looked it up and told me over the phone (which they could have done the first time).
Let's be clear, obfuscating medical costs for customers is a core insurance company competency (like hiring doctors outside of specialty to decline coverage for treatments of patients who's records they have not read- see Aetna investigation). So, if you want to know how much something is going to cost you for treatment, I recommend self-diagnosis. You can bill yourself what you want for it... then you can call the billing department and ask for every single code and figure out which ones should be required to reach your diagnosis and provide treatment. Then you can try to get them to tell you what value is assigned to each billing code. Then you can go to the hospital and tell the nurses and doctors exactly what they should do and what codes to use.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/11/health/aetna-california-inves...
Exactly. This is exactly the problem. The current situation bears no resemblance to a market. Price can't seek value.
You're describing a corner case that can be, at least partially, planned for ahead of time (by consumers, insurers, a combination of the two, etc).
And sometimes your hand is forced in all sorts of markets. But if enough shoppers are even somewhat price-discerning, the "value per price" that you pay for a given good or service should be significantly lower than it is in the current state of affairs.
After a heart-attack/car-wreck the ambulance should take me to the closest hospital not the one that happens to be 30 miles farther away and in-network. If I'm EOL care, then I likely have pre-existing conditions and travel limitation that will limit my ability to change plans, much less hospitals.
Including Heli EMS from car accident scenes...
A system isn't a blank slate it has all sorts of existing issues and players who benefit from the way things are. Currently lots of players are profiting from the way things are.
If you removed all regulations things would start out mostly the same and players would naturally tilt things so they could give out less money and take more in.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that individual actors would act to ensure the greater good for society even if in the large scale this would be beneficial to society as a whole including them.
A manager at a firm thinks first of what benefits himself, then his firm, then his customers, then society as a whole.
People that put aside profits for the greater profit of humanity are actually selected against by the economic principles you adore.
The health care insurance model exists to help people pool and save expenses for rare misadventures like breaking your leg.
Its unclear how in any rational world this applies to people that are signifigantly ill and need ongoing treatment with known values.
If you knew you were going to crash twice this year and every year thereafter what would your expected insurance rate be and how would the insurance model help you pay for that?
Doctor visits just 30 year ago did not cost what they do today. You could get a clean break in your arm, go into your GP, have it fully fixed and be out the door for less than a week's wages for an average blue collar worker. This was actually considered very expensive, but it prices were held down for the simple fact that people cared and there was a hard limit - can't get blood from a stone.
When insurance started to become "cadillac" plans I very much noticed an insane explosion in everyday medical costs and a nosedive in quality of care. It's now a corporate factory system where everyone is miserable - the doctors and the patients. The only winners are executives and shareholders. The insanity of average cases of stuff like the flu now going to a doctor also is very new, and only is happening due to the incentives of "free visit" for the average consumer.
The typical argument used against a return to "free market" health care where insurance is actually insurance again is one much like yours - if you're sick you don't care about the price. This was proven untrue just in my recent childhood, and something like 90%+ of all healthcare is not urgent or emergency related. If 90% of the market is setting prices via free market discovery the remaining 10% will be drug along or can be forced to via limited regulation.
Healthcare costs in the US are almost entirely a principal agent problem. Absolutely no one has a damn clue of what anything costs at any point in the entire process. And the real issue is the consumers don't actually care since they are only harmed in an indirect sense.
In what other profession can a professional perform a task not knowing what he’s charging for the services being rendered?
So, all you are proposing is rationing care aka if people can't get care then cost is not a problem.
I would suggest a public option that excluded any patented medication or extensive intervention could be really cheap if you also removed most paper work and the ability to sue. But, nobody would accept a significantly lower standard of care.
No. These rates are affected by more screening procedures. Some nipped a potentially fatal cancer in the bud, others just found and removed something that wouldn't have killed the person.
To first order there is no change in the effectiveness of cancer treatment as compared to 50 years ago.
Really what we care about is cancer deaths at a specific age AKA what % of 15 year old people die of cancer and that really has dropped. Even beyond that the absolute rate of cancer deaths in the US peaked in 1990 216 per 100k vs 2015 at 158 per 100k. Which is a massive drop even over 1950's pre screening and younger population numbers of 193 per 100k.
PS: Stomach cancer is flat out much less common because we understand a major cause now. Cervical cancer rates will similarly drop from the HPV vaccine.
Treating, for example, thyroid or prostate cancers that would not have killed the person improves cancer survival statistics but nothing else.
Hmmm... Apply a 25 year lag. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m4843a2f1....
>PS: Stomach cancer is flat out much less common because we understand a major cause now. Cervical cancer rates will similarly drop from the HPV vaccine.
Yes...lots of progress in infectious disease treatment, very little with cancer treatment.
I included HPV and Stomach cancer in a PS specifically because they are minor changes to overall numbers. Sunscreen also impacts the rates people get cancer, but it's a very minor effect.
And lung cancer is not the only cancer caused by smoking.
In any case, cancer death rates and changes in risk factors do not speak directly to the claim about treatment effectiveness. If you are diagnosed with cancer, you are basically every bit as f'ed today as you were 50 years ago, except in the special case that your cancer happens to be one of those that never would have been noticed back then.
Also, see that huge drop in Prostate and Colorectum cancer. Yea, that has nothing to do with smoking it's almost completely related to better treatment making a huge difference.
And again, we are not looking at equivalent populations. The older the US population the worse cancer numbers look in absolute terms.
So, even the chart you are using to support your argument actually supports mine.
PS: To account for a 25% drop in cancer deaths lung cancers could have hit zero in that cart and it would still not be enough.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-early-detection-of-canc...
>Unless one can follow a cohort over time, there is no way of accurately estimating the probability that a subclinically detected abnormality will naturally progress to an adverse outcome. The probability of such an outcome is mathematically constrained, however, by the prevalence of the detected abnormality. The upper limit of this probability can be derived from reasoning that dates to the 17th century, when vital statistics were first collected. If the number of persons dying from a specific disease is fixed, then the probability that a person with the disease will eventually die from it is inversely related to the prevalence of the disease. Therefore, given fixed mortality rates, an increase in the detection of a potentially fatal disease decreases the likelihood that the disease detected in any one person will be fatal..... Lead-time and length biases pertain not only to changes that lower the threshold for detecting disease, but also to new treatments that are applied at the same time. Whether or not new therapy is more effective than old therapy, patients given diagnoses with the use of lower detection thresholds will appear to have better outcomes than their historical controls because of these biases. Consequently, new therapies often appear promising and could even replace older therapies that are more effective or have fewer side effects. Because the decision to treat or to investigate the need for treatment further is increasingly influenced by the results of diagnostic imaging, lead-time and length biases increasingly pervade medical practice.
>There is another complication that these more powerful imaging modalities can lead to that wasn’t discussed in the paper, stage migration. This is a phenomenon that occurs when more sophisticated imaging studies or more aggressive surgery leads to the detection of tumor spread that wouldn’t have been noted in an identical patient using previously used tests. This phenomenon is colloquially known in the cancer biz as the Will Rogers effect. The name is based on Will Rogers’ famous joke: “When the Okies left Oklahoma and moved to California, they raised the average intelligence level in both states.” This little joke describes very well what can happen in cancer. What in essence happens is that technology results in a migration of patients from one stage to another that does the same thing for cancer prognosis that Will Rogers’ famous quip did for intelligence. Consider this example. Patients who would formerly have been classified as, for example, stage II cancer (any cancer), thanks to better imaging or more aggressive surgery, have additional disease or metastases detected that wouldn’t have been detected in the past. They are now, under the new conditions and using the new test, classified as stage III, even though in the past they would have been classified as stage II. This leads to the paradoxical statistical effect of making the survival of both groups (stage II and III) appear better, without any actual change in the overall survival of the group as a whole. This paradox comes about because the patients who “migrate” to stage III tend to have a lower volume of disease or less aggressive disease compared to the average stage III patient and thus a better prognosis. Adding them to the stage III patients from before thus improves the apparent survival of stage III patients as a group. The converse is that patients with more disease that was previously undetected, tended to be the stage II patients who would have recurred and done more poorly compared to the average patient with stage II disease; i.e., the worst prognosis stage II patients. But now, they have “migrated” to stage III, leaving behind stage II patients who truly do not have as advanced disease and thus in general have a better prognosis. Thus, the prognosis of the stage II group also ends up appearing to be better with no real change in the overall survival from this cancer.
If you want to look overall you can look at the number of people dying at each age of each type of cancer independent of both diagnosis and treatment. AKA how many 43 year old women died of breast cancer. That also has some problems for people that died of cancer before it was detected as cancer, or people who died of suicide or related complications but not necessarily cancer on it's own. Even more critical is reduction in the rate people get cancer in the first place.
Still we are not talking about a small gap, when you start seeing a 30+% drop for a wide range of cancers it's easy to see that yes treatments are extremely useful. Even if you only get an extra say 2 years that's still 2 years to die of a car crash and not cancer.
I think it's naive to assume the 16.5%-of-GDP octopus we've created wouldn't figure out a way to profit from the removal of all regulations.
Surgeons do this today to maintain a high success rate.