13k vs 35k for a defib implantation, yikes.
I understand that it's helpful to see for people who are under/uninsured, but for most of the people it'll just max out at out of pocket/annual deductible max (which for example is like $250 per annum for me).
Further, what hospitals charge to insurance is not necessarily the rate insurance pays either. My counselor charges my insurance $400 an hour, but insurance negotiates it to like $80, of which I pay $0.
The counseling office charges people who do not have insurance like $96 per session.
What hospitals charge is not necessarily cost to patient is all I'm saying.
It is cost to the patient in the form of ever rising insurance premiums and deductibles (mine is $3000 and a lot of people have even higher deductibles).
Your counselor example also shows the insanity of US healthcare pricing. $400 vs $80 vs $96. How is anybody supposed to make economical decisions with such crazy pricing differences? There should be a regulation that providers charge the same price for the same procedure, no matter if they are insured or not or what insurance they have.
Generally the level of regulatory compliance necessary to enter the healthcare market is proportional to the risk of patient harm. If you want to sell healthcare analytics software not directly involved in patient care then there are basically no more regulations on vendors than in any other software market. On the other hand, if you want to start a new company to make implanted pacemakers then you'll have to spend years working through FDA compliance issues because a single tiny error can easily kill a patient.
Insurance: "Look how much we saved you! (Don't question our value.)"
And maybe even the medical provider being able to write off the difference as a business loss or being able to say: "Look how much we discounted your service!"
Even those employers that do pay 100% of the insurance premium could have paid more to their workers if the insurance costs were less.
Not trying to fight, I've just never seen it.
Also not trying to fight. "Could have paid you more" does actually happen in the right type of competitive environment -- though most employers are more likely to avoid direct salary increases to instead increase other parts of the "full compensation package". It's relatively much easier to later reduce those other things than it is to reduce direct salary, if things go sideways down the road.
Well, that's one way to characterize tax laws, sure. The American healthcare system too, for that matter.
1. Ripping off anyone without insurance who doesn't realize they may be able to negotiate it 2. Misrepresenting the true cost of healthcare for anyone who goes off the "original price" 3. Establishing that insurance companies have to push for deep, 90%+ discounts on everything, meaning nobody can offer sane pricing because the insurance company will say "But <HOSPITAL> gives us 95% off!"
I recently had a genetic test done. They told me that if my cost after insurance was more than $200 they'd notify me ahead of time so I could decide how to proceed, one option was a simple pay-cash option for $250. Turns out the "Amount billed" to insurance was $ 25,000, which was then "discounted" by about $ 24,600 and they were paid $400 or something. So, this is a service the lab is happy to provide for $250 -- and they make money at that price, yet in some fantasy universe, $ 25,000 is in play. This is why people want to burn the US health system to the ground.
Ultimately the end user is paying $250/300. Eg, my counselor example.