ACA at risk?

Status
Not open for further replies.
....
And IMO, the ability to negotiate prices should include the single greatest "consumer" of prescription drug prices on the planet -- Medicare.

All too complex for me to conjecture, but fun reading.

I do agree with Ziggy, lots of other countries negotiate or set limits on price of drugs, and the drug companies still sell them there.
In fact the drug companies sell drugs in Africa for $1, and here they charge $50 -> $200 (example Polio vaccine).

Would we accept the Air-force/Army/Navy not negotiating the price of goods purchased ?

$45 per bullet would seem pretty good to the bullet manufacturer, but insane to the public.
 
The big problem is that Healthcare is not something that the 'Free Market' can address... You would first have to assign a value to Life --- (i.e. What is your spouse worth?) and then go from there...

Is healthcare in this country is based on the free market ... how come so many of the big medical groups are "not for profit?"
 
Two years ago, I was faced with a lack of transparency when I tried to find out how much a routine, non-invasive procedure would cost.


I had this simple, routine procedure done in 2015 and 2016. But when I saw the EOB following an early 2017 procedure, I saw that the negotiated rate had more than doubled, from a reasonable $150 to more than $300. A big reason was that this small clinic had become part of one of the large provider networks.


So, I looked at switching to another provider which had recently opened up an office in my neighborhood but was not part of a major network. Later in 2017, I asked them what the negotiated rate would be, assuming they had had at least one patient who was with my IC. They couldn't tell me. I also asked my IC what the negotiated rate would be, but they told me I wouldn't know until I got the EOB after the service was done. I can't think of any other product or service where the cost was totally unknown.


I did change to the new provider and their negotiated rate was low, like the former provider's rate was. Whew! But it really makes no sense as to why I had to actually purchase their service just to learn how much it would cost.
 
This Rick Steve's discussion about E-R care in Italy is similar to what happened to me. I had intense (could not walk) abdominal pain. Ambulance took me to University of Bologna Medical Center. Saw 3 specialists. One thought it was appendicitis (that was ruled out) ambulance carried me around this huge campus and finally discovered fibroid tumors. I think it cost $50 if anything. They offered to do surgery, but I wanted to go back to U.S. My DSI, who lives there and speaks Italian, clearly translated the discussion.

https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/italy/italy-er-visit
 
This Rick Steve's discussion about E-R care in Italy is similar to what happened to me. I had intense (could not walk) abdominal pain. Ambulance took me to University of Bologna Medical Center. Saw 3 specialists. One thought it was appendicitis (that was ruled out) ambulance carried me around this huge campus and finally discovered fibroid tumors. I think it cost $50 if anything. They offered to do surgery, but I wanted to go back to U.S. My DSI, who lives there and speaks Italian, clearly translated the discussion.

https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/italy/italy-er-visit

As long as the US system remains primarily profit based, greed will come before our citizens care and well being. Unfortunately I do not see a proper fix in our lifetimes.

There does not seem to be a happy medium in the USA. An example would be:

Doc Charges say $300 for a consult or whatever, Insurance companies pay the negotiated rate of $34 Doc writes off $266 on taxes. So Government ends up picking up the slack AGAIN anyway.

PS. This was an Actual number from one of DW's EOBs. Check yours sometime.
 
Last edited:
^
This is a different ruling on a different matter. A prior labor rule from an EO (2017 ish) allowed for the creation of small non-ACA collective type plans (think small business groups, chamber of commerce, pre-aca style) to start up again. The courts blocked that as it attempts a run-around of the ACA law.

This new ruling that blocks that attempt is totally separate from the main ruling on the thread, from Texas, that seeks to nullify the entire ACA on the basis of the individual mandate.
 
Doc Charges say $300 for a consult or whatever, Insurance companies pay the negotiated rate of $34 Doc writes off $266 on taxes. So Government ends up picking up the slack AGAIN anyway.
There’s no tax write off. The physician simply declares gross income of $34.
 
Not so according to my Cardiologist's billing person. We are friends. They claim it as a write off. OR, at least that is what she tells me.
She’s BS’ing you. To be polite, perhaps she has convinced herself that the difference between the negotiated price and her much higher billed amount is rightfully due and she is involuntarily “writing it off”. It’s a distorted view, to say the least.

Accounting rules are both clear and strict on this. As a business, yiu can bill a $Billion, but you can only account as revenue the amount you have a reasonable expectation of collecting. If you have an agreement with an insurer that a procedure is worth $34, you can’t declare a higher number and then write off the difference as charitable or uncollected. It also doesn’t make sense.

What she says doesn’t make sense on another level as well. If she declares the higher amount as revenue and the uncollected amount as overdue, before writing it off she would need to make a reasonable effort to collect. If the uncollected amount were still listed as “due but uncollected” at the end of the year, she would need to pay taxes as if she had collected, then charge it off in a subsequent year. No right minded physician is going to do that.
 
I shall challenge her on it! Assuming you are correct, I am sorry for the misinformation. I really had no reason to not believe her. She has always given me good advice on what plans to choose on the ACA, and even when I was trying to wrestle with Medicare supplements, she always came though. Maybe there is a loop hole?
 
Last edited:
An example would be:

Doc Charges say $300 for a consult or whatever, Insurance companies pay the negotiated rate of $34 Doc writes off $266 on taxes. So Government ends up picking up the slack AGAIN anyway.

PS. This was an Actual number from one of DW's EOBs. Check yours sometime.


A doctor CANNOT “write off” income they never received (from a tax perspective).

So they government is not paying anything towards the difference in the negotiated rate and the “list price”.

I do agree that the absurd list prices have to be dealt with. It seems like they are used mainly to screw people who can least afford it (uninsured people).
 
I shall challenge her on it! Assuming you are correct, I am sorry for the misinformation. I really had no reason to not believe her. She has always given me good advice on what plans to choose on the ACA, and even when I was trying to wrestle with Medicare supplements, she always came though. Maybe there is a loop hole?

I wouldn’t challenge my doc on a matter regarding their income, and wouldn’t even bring it up. No need to add anything that might antagonize the relationship.
 
She’s BS’ing you. To be polite, perhaps she has convinced herself that the difference between the negotiated price and her much higher billed amount is rightfully due and she is involuntarily “writing it off”. It’s a distorted view, to say the least.

Accounting rules are both clear and strict on this.....



I think the confusion is that it is NOT a tax write off but it IS a receivables write off from an accounting perspective (ie it goes in the ledger at full price then gets written down to the negotiated price)

The important point is that neither the government nor the patient are paying any of the difference between the two numbers.
 
I have seen this reduction described different among insurance companies. For the IC I had through 2015, it was described as a "write-down," while for the one I have had since 2016, it was described as an "[IC name] Discount." The latter sounds a little more elegant, if not self-serving, than the bland former.
 
I do agree that the absurd list prices have to be dealt with. It seems like they are used mainly to screw people who can least afford it (uninsured people).

+1

A disturbing trend I've noticed is the quality of answers on the phones. Few years ago I needed to see a balance therapist for half a day. His office gave me the codes and with one phone call I was able to see what my obligation was.

I recently tried that with a urologist, who I see in this state, but this procedure needed to be done in an OR, in a different state. I called and was told no problem your plan allows travel(see the little suitcase on your card[emoji12] ). Yeah, that worked for 2 minutes and they denied the charges as the facility isn't in the statewide network. Now I'm disputing the charges as there's no providers within 250 miles in this state. I swear it's a guessing game to determine what is even covered.
 
Last edited:
+1

A disturbing trend I've noticed is the quality of answers on the phones. Few years ago I needed to see a balance therapist for half a day. His office gave me the codes and with one phone call I was able to see what my obligation was.

I recently tried that with a urologist, who I see in this state, but this procedure needed to be done in an OR, in a different state. I called and was told no problem your plan allows travel(see the little suitcase on your card[emoji12] ). Yeah, that worked for 2 minutes and they denied the charges as the facility isn't in the statewide network. Now I'm disputing the charges as there's no providers within 250 miles in this state. I swear it's a guessing game to determine what is even covered.

Free market transactions are bad for business. Rule #1 when you're defrauding people: You can't let them know they've been fleeced till after you've done it
 
Not so according to my Cardiologist's billing person. We are friends. They claim it as a write off. OR, at least that is what she tells me.

It doesn't really matter if they have $300 of revenue and a $266 writedown or writeoff or $34 of revenue.... either way the taxable income is $34.
 
All too complex for me to conjecture, but fun reading.

I do agree with Ziggy, lots of other countries negotiate or set limits on price of drugs, and the drug companies still sell them there.
In fact the drug companies sell drugs in Africa for $1, and here they charge $50 -> $200 (example Polio vaccine).

Would we accept the Air-force/Army/Navy not negotiating the price of goods purchased ?

$45 per bullet would seem pretty good to the bullet manufacturer, but insane to the public.

They need to make it a policy: medicare pays drug companies the lowest price, if they sell to Africa for a $1, medicare pays a $1, otherwise medicare doesn’t pay.
No exceptions. You’re drug isn’t covered.
 
In non-emergency situations, I try to do a simple cost benefit analysis on any medical product or service. Finding the cost, for anyone who's tried to do it, is difficult and frequently ambiguous or opaque beyond some multiple order-of-magnitude guess - $40 or $4000. I get the impression that very few people try to do price discovery and thus very few select based on price.

I think an important reason for this is that, unlike a Big Mac, where the dollar (or eight) goes from my after-tax wallet to the McDonald's cash register at the time I eat the hamburger, my health product dollar goes from either my employer's pocket or my pocket, possibly through my income tax returns or HSA, and an insurance company, and some accounting at the doctor's office, and the state indigent fund and Medicaid (because my dollars get mixed in with the uninsured and low income people's treatment costs) and the ACA (because of APTC and CSR), and the hospital's accounting office, and a pharmacy benefit manager, and a drug company who might provide discounts, and a copay and a deductible and coinsurance, and one to three months on the calendar, and maybe some other people and steps that I didn't list, and end up in the doctor's or hospital's pocket.

I've got an MBA and am in the national MBA honor society - I have a plaque and donation solicitation emails to prove it - and have several family members directly involved in health care and I can't figure it out. No wonder nobody tries to figure out the cost. And if people don't try to figure out the cost, it is no wonder there is little incentive for the doctors and hospitals to try to compete based on prices and price transparency.

I'd like to move closer to the Big Mac model, but other than asking for prices for my own medical products and services, I don't have much idea how to do so. I think the current Rube Goldberg system we have is pretty entrenched.
 
They won't tell you what things cost ahead of time.

For instance, when I tried to use the annual exam benefit on my ACA plan, the insurer said it depends on how the doctor's office codes it. Some codes for exams are covered, others are not.

They wouldn't tell me what that code was so that I could reference it when I talked to my doctor's office.

It's not an accident that pricing is opaque. They want it that way.

Imagine if there are websites comparing codes, reimbursement rates or cash prices for common procedures for providers and insurers in your zip code.

Then you'd get some price competition.

Why would the stakeholders which make lucrative living on the current system volunteer to submit to that situation?
 
Big Macs, Health Care and free markets

The invisible hand of the free market is more effective with Big Macs than health care. The invisible hand needs some conditions to work, namely “perfect market conditions”. Buyers and sellers must know all they need to know about what they are buying and selling to make the right decisions, and the market must have all price takers, no price makers. This is the case for Big Macs, commodities, and many consumer goods. Not the case for health care, thought, where there is a critical imbalance in the knowledge of the product between sellers and buyers. There are price makers as well, in this case insurers, who set prices based on their own interest, which aligns with neither the provider nor the consumer.

Kenneth Arrow established and explained this in his 1963 paper, which can be found here https://web.stanford.edu/~jay/health_class/Readings/Lecture01/arrow.pdf
 
Not the case for health care, thought, where there is a critical imbalance in the knowledge of the product between sellers and buyers. There are price makers as well, in this case insurers, who set prices based on their own interest, which aligns with neither the provider nor the consumer.

Yes another example of folks (Corporations & Providers) taking advantage or others any way they can. They know that a lot of the time people have no choice in getting service or doing research, especially in emergencies. Personally I think it is deplorable that people get taken advantage of when they are at their weakest at the expense of their health. It certainly happened to me when I had to have an emergency pacemaker fitted. Even though the hospital was "In Plan" they managed to conjure up 3 providers that were not and who could charge anything they liked. If it was not me sending a detailed letter complaining to the commissioner for health or insurance (Not sure what he was called). I would have been subject to thousands of overages. He made sure the insurance companies paid in full for my case. It was in Florida and the minister at that time (2006) was Charlie Christ.
 
Last edited:
Understanding Health Care Costs

This might look silly, but Adam Ruins Everything explains in funny but realistic terms what the heck happened to raise the cost of healthcare in the U.S. This video has over 5 million views. Enjoy! I learned about the BS that happened way back when...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom