Insurers must have data on pricing. You can call up some already before having imaging procedures for some guidance on cost. Maybe they can expand price transparency as a differentiator to their competitors.
I really hope this goes through - this one item will allow people to actually have educated discussions about care and ROI. It will allow people to compete, to specialize, to better serve those who are ill.
I dislike the Trump admin a lot. But I like this a lot. The federal government ought to make this step 1 in a strategic effort to make a consumer report campaign for patients. 100pct consumer driven all about where the money goes, why, by whom, how prices are assessed, how they differ geographically, and outcomes to money spent. Put the consumer in charge of their money
This is one thing Trump is doing that should get broad support. It probably won’t though, because some people are physically incapable of agreeing with him.
Absolutely! We should also give credit to the Obama administration for proposing the legislation in the first place and including it in the language of the ACA.
I honestly didn't even know this was in the works. It's amazing how much effort is put towards blocking out any positive news about this administration.
Yeah, Obama Care had some good things like preexisting conditions but nasty things such as fining people who cannot afford health care. However there's about 5 states that are implementing their own fine for residents. I know though people who are part of health sharing ministries, or if you are amish, a scientologists, a Christian Scientists or a Muslim were exempted from ACA so not sure if states will carry that along or not. Really feel like no system is perfect though.
Then the whole idea of enrollment times being limited, being in network and out of network, even a hospital in network can have doctors and providers out of network. So if you get surgery in network, your anesthesiologist might be out of network and get a surprise bill. Then some doctors will even tell people to not worry and everything will be covered but it's not. I know someone who needed something done but was so worried about getting costs, the doctor got a pre-approval from the insurance company and they still didn't want to pay it. So either the insurance company or doctor lied.
I know some RVers recommend health sharing ministries though, but I know it's not technically considered insurance. There's a few of them that were approved, so Obama Care would see it as insurance even though it wasn't. Also I don't believe you have to worry about the whole in-network or not as you are self paying and then get reimbursed for your bills. Plus traditional insurance doesn't cover you across state lines, so useless for travelers too. Plus I think they might be cheaper too. Something to research more though as sounds like an alternative. I know one isn't too religious, just got to believe in god, don't smoke or drink alcohol unless socially. Kinda interesting you can be legally forced to buy health insurance but you can't even use it.
Same thing with car insurance, forced to get it but it isn't forced to pay anything. Even if you wasn't at fault, they try to wiggle their way out of paying or drop you. Pretty much a legalized mandated ponzi scheme. Then they all run flashy TV commercials saying they are the cheapest to switch to, well they all can't be the cheapest so someone is lying or they give you a deal then a year later it just increases.
One issue is that while posting standard prices is good, most analysis I've seen says that it won't actually have much effect for most people.
If it is done as part of a broad effort to address health care costs and availability, then it's fine. But so far there is no sign of any such broad plan, which leads many to worry that this will be all that the current Administration is going to do to try to lower health costs.
It is done as part of a broad effort to address health care costs and availability. You haven't seen any sign of this because anything favorable to Trump gets very little news coverage. For example, I managed to find one online mention in mainstream news (not sure if it was ever broadcast) that mentions Trump's effort for drug price transparency:
Unfortunately I believe he will cave in quickly and lose interest while claiming a big win . So far none of his health efforts have led to anything other than big words about Obamacare and then nothing.
I called a pharmacy once and asked how much a vaccination would be. I had insurance. They told me they couldn't tell me how much it would be until after I got the shot.
I don't think anyone who has had to pay hospital bills would agree with the hospital lobby's decision to fight this. The article's title makes it give the impression this is okay because, orange man bad, however regardless of the party pushing for transparency it is something everyone would benefit from (other than the heal care industry/insurance company's profits).
I thoroughly dislike the bad orange man, but I will save my strongest words for a more appropriate forum. That said, just because you may dislike someone doesn't mean that you have to opposed everything they do. I do agree with this push for price transparency.
Right? I always find myself wondering why antitrust isn’t applicable?
The hospitals clearly work together to ensure that consumers don’t have accurate or correct pricing information, which has always seemed like it should be classified as anticompetitive behavior.
I don't think they are working together so much as the system is setup to reward their anti competitive behavior so they all have followed the rewards to the same end.
I feel the same way about Trump, but as someone who's gone through many years of trying to eke out basic health care and gone through years of minimal insurance, I see this as the government doing the right thing to a giant, bloated, sector. In many ways, health care manifests itself like a racketeering operation in the country, despite the genuine well-wishing of the battalions of nurses, doctors, staff, and assistants who help us every day.
To be clear, I think in virtually all respects orange man indeed is very bad. This headline suggested to me that orange man may actually be attempting something worthwhile.
Also, the orange is obviously an artificial color, so it's his self-image that's he's choosing to broadcast. Remarks about the taste of his chosen appearance are certainly not out of bounds any more than remarks about the gold toilet in the white house.
In what way is the article title non-neutral? It seems fine to me. For the record, I oppose the Trump administration but support this action by the Trump administration.
Original title that they changed which my original comment was based off of was, 'Hospitals pledge to fight Trump admin price transparency plan in court'
Removing the word Trump (trigger word) is what dang was referring to.
Sadly in many walks of life (more so politics) we see people focus upon the messenger instead of the message. It stems IMHo from that primitaive tribal legacy that we still see play out today, be that sports with the teams or party politics. This is not a trait that all have and many have thru various factors, moved on and with that there are many who focus upon the message and put aside and loyalty or prejudices they may have in how they recieve and approach the message.
So with that, like yourself I view this transparency price thing as a good thing as it boils down to ticking the fairness box and being good for the people.
Equally, I can see how from business aspect wise it is bad and heck - what business would love to service a customer and not tell them the price only after the work has been dowe without them having any say in it. I'm sure many, however unfair/unscrupulous it may seem. So I see why they will fight it, be it to revoke it, change it or delay it in legal red-tape in the whole process. However, the approach of invoking the tribal support aspect to kill this of and by that, everybody who dislikes the party or the president that made this come about would be a devious tactic and unfair approach. Yet, that does appear to be the one being driven, be that directly or perhaps more so, the biases played out by the reporter/media outlets.
But a tribal bias in media outlets is something we are all aware of, some more balanced than other. But imagine if you had those opposing biases in the same location debating things and how that would deteriorate. Well, imagination is not needed as you get exactly that upon social media platforms.
So will be interesting and equally, concerning how this whole fight by hospitals plays out. As will the effect if/when it comes to pass. Will it help lower prices or will it drive up health tourisim abroad as you may find it is cheaper to hope on a plane to say Canada and get the blood test done there and work out cheaper. As will be the case with a few procedures using other countries.
Also be interesting how people react to this and will we see hoards of protestors fighting for the hospitals to stop this happening based solely upon party political tribal mentalities. I'd like to think not, but we live in such interesting times, you just can't rule that out.
The article's title is entirely factual. I didn't see any sentiment of "orange man bad" in there. Unless the words "Trump administration" are themselves somehow critical. Which is weird.
You can trade Obama and Trump in the above and get an idea of how a lot of people feel.
The truth is in the middle, nobody is perfect, nobody is pure evil. But once you choose a side you find it hard to see any good in the other. (I often recognize and fight the problem in myself - with no idea how often I miss it)
Obligatory reminder socialized medicine exists, is cheaper [1], controls costs better [2] has better health outcomes [3], complete price transparency (for instance [4]) and no surprise billing. Also, a reminder that a majority of Americans want it [5].
