Hacker News Reader

Comment by gardenfelder | Hacker News Reader

My recollection is that BlueCross was a non-profit until Reagan became president.

Blue Cross is still a non-profit.

I've got a friend who works at a big non-profit hospital. There's a budget term of art, 'Revenue in excess of expenses,' into which flows a large amount of money that would be called profit elsewhere. I haven't found a detailed report on BCBS finances, but I'm looking now. Non-profit doesn't mean there's no extra money, it only means an entity is organized in a particular way.

By definition, in order to continue as a going concern, they have to have more revenue than expenses. There is new equipment, treatments, raises, maintenance, inflation, etc. I guess one could have an all-volunteer hospital where everything is donated, from time, and equipment to land and buildings, etc.

> new equipment, treatments, raises, maintenance, inflation, etc

Much of these are expenses. Other organizations have ways of distinguishing between what's needed and what's extra, why do you think hospitals have nothing extra?

Yes, but people typically think of expenses as more or less operating expenses.

The parent association that owns the Blue Cross brand is non-profit. However the individual companies (at least all the ones I've examined) are for profit - and in fact are quite profitable. For example, the entire revenue of the parent association is smaller than the profits of only Blue Cross South Carolina.

That's what I was talking about. That happened when Reagan took office.

It's a meaningless distinction if you're still allowed to raise your prices and then adjust your "costs" within a giant opaque black box that you call the chargemaster.

Lack of price controls and transparency is one (of many) of the reasons health care is so expensive.

depends on the state.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com