 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / July 2009Hospitals overcharge, especially the uninsured, Consumer Reports study confirms
http://www.consumersunion.org/health/unisuredfctwc.htm "Uninsured families who go to the hospital for needed care are often charged exorbitant rates, often much higher than the rate for insured patients." http://www.businessreporter.org/hospitals-overchage-uninsured-patients.htm Hospitals Overcharge Uninsured Patients "The 41.2 million Americans without health insurance are often forced to pay up to 70 percent more than insurance companies do for healthcare bills." "They usually hit the uninsured, who are least able to afford it, with charges 4 or 5 times what they charge an insured person." --Bankrate.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.hsacoalition.org/2008/01/18/two-simple-steps-to-immediately-end-hospi tal-overcharging/ “A new study designed to uncover the key to understanding hospital prices confirms what large purchasers have long suspected: a disturbing number of hospitals appear to be grossly overcharging and not being held accountable. If you've ever spent time in a hospital, you've almost certainly been overcharged. “There is no way to avoid being overbilled. It is going to happen. In the last several years of looking at hundreds of bills, I’ve run across only one hospital bill with no errors,” says Edward Waxman of Edward R. Waxman & Associates, an independent hospital bill auditor with 10 years of experience helping consumers sort through their medical bills. Overcharges hurt the most when they are not covered by insurance, but even when they are, they can impact your pocketbook or your health. > http://www.consumersunion.org/health/unisuredfctwc.htm > > "Uninsured families who go to the hospital for needed care are often > charged exorbitant rates, often much higher than the rate for insured > patients." yes. If one doesniot have insurance, hospital will charge uninsured patient extremely high rates - to offset the cost of those who don't pay at all. The uninsured working poor and middle class are better served by going to private or public health clinic when extreme measures are not necessary. >> "Uninsured families who go to the hospital for needed care are often >> charged exorbitant rates, often much higher than the rate for insured [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If one doesniot have insurance, hospital will charge uninsured patient > extremely high rates - to offset the cost of those who don't pay at all. Why can't the insured people offset this cost as well? >>> "Uninsured families who go to the hospital for needed care are often >>> charged exorbitant rates, often much higher than the rate for insured [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Why can't the insured people offset this cost as well? Why should someone who has been paying premiums pay the same offset as someone who hasn't? (And yes, I include employer-provided insurance claimants as those who've been paying premiums. They pay in the form of labor rather than writing the checks themselves but the principle is the same.) >>>> "Uninsured families who go to the hospital for needed care are often >>>> charged exorbitant rates, often much higher than the rate for insured [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > been paying premiums. They pay in the form of labor rather than writing > the checks themselves but the principle is the same.) The hospital does not get the premiums; the insurance company does.. The cost is the same to the hospital whether the person has insurance or not. And the really poor can get charity care. The point is that it's unfair to charge people who do have some assets but no insurance more than people with insurance. In most cases, such people do not have insurance because they have lost their jobs or are working at low-paying jobs that do not provide insurance. The cost of individual health insurance is so high now that many if not most people can't afford it. I don't see where anyone in particular should "offset" the cost of charging the uninsurered the same rate as everyone else. It's just the fair thing to do. Indeed, it's grossly UNFAIR to charge the most to the people who can least afford it like the working poor. >>>>> "Uninsured families who go to the hospital for needed care are >>>>> often charged exorbitant rates, often much higher than the rate [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > the fair thing to do. Indeed, it's grossly UNFAIR to charge the most > to the people who can least afford it like the working poor. Welcome to the "free" market. Do you think it unfair for an airline to charge a ticket broker less per seat for his ++33333-9** block purchase than it charges you for your single seat? Because that's what happens with insurance companies: they contract with hospitals to send their policy holders to them. In return for the bulk business, both airline and hospital charge less per unit. >>>>>> "Uninsured families who go to the hospital for needed care are >>>>>> often charged exorbitant rates, often much higher than the rate [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> Why should someone who has been paying premiums pay the same offset >>> as someone who hasn't? ... >> The hospital does not get the premiums; the insurance company does.. >> The cost is the same to the hospital whether the person has insurance [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > hospitals to send their policy holders to them. In return for the bulk > business, both airline and hospital charge less per unit. The difference is that the vast majority of hospitals exist to do good, not to make a profit. They were founded for a charitable purpose, usually by religious or charitable organizations. Only about 18% of hospitals are for-profit (and even most of them benefit from some sort of public assistance directly or indirectly). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital >>>>>>> "Uninsured families who go to the hospital for needed care are >>>>>>> often charged exorbitant rates, often much higher than the rate [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > The difference is that the vast majority of hospitals exist to do > good, not to make a profit. Note that these are not mutually exclusive goals. And your definition of "vast majority" is about 60% these days, with the remaining 40% split between for-profit and government-run. > They were founded for a charitable > purpose, usually by religious or charitable organizations. Only about > 18% of hospitals are for-profit (and even most of them benefit from > some sort of public assistance directly or indirectly). > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital Whether or not hospitals are charitable or for-profit, they still charge for their services, and they still charge less for bulk services than for individual. >> They were founded for a charitable >> purpose, usually by religious or charitable organizations. Only about >> 18% of hospitals are for-profit (and even most of them benefit from >> some sort of public assistance directly or indirectly). >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital >Whether or not hospitals are charitable or for-profit, they still charge >for their services, and they still charge less for bulk services than for >individual. Can you tell us what these "bulk services" consist of? Ten appendectomies in a row perhaps? Without change of surgeon, staff, OR, etc? Just line 'em up and slice and dice. You've been told before that these reasons for bulk pricing just don't exist in the hospital market. You just don't want to listen... And even if there are some minute areas of economies of scale (laundry, say) the method of payment or non-payment has nothing to do with the savings. It's still one set of sheets for each patient. But you don't want to listen... >>>>>>>> "Uninsured families who go to the hospital for needed care are >>>>>>>> often charged exorbitant rates, often much higher than the rate [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > "vast majority" is about 60% these days, with the remaining 40% split > between for-profit and government-run. It's more like 82% or greater. Government hospitals are not "for profit." They exist to serve the public and are most like a nonprofit hospital. As that article pointed out, only about 18% of hospitals are for-profit: "about 62 percent-were nonprofit. The rest included government hospitals (20 percent) and for-profit hospitals (18 percent).[" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital (and even most of the for-profits benefit from some sort of public assistance directly or indirectly). And some estimates are as low as 12% http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/june/forprofit_hospitals.php (They are also a lot more expensive and ineffective: "Investor-owned hospitals charge outrageous prices for inferior care." said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler. "That's not just an opinion, it's now a proven fact. The for-profits skimp on nurses, but spend lavishly on their executives and paper-pushers." http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/june/forprofit_hospitals.php >> They were founded for a charitable >> purpose, usually by religious or charitable organizations. Only about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for their services, and they still charge less for bulk services than for > individual. Patients are treated individually, not in bulk. But that evades the issue: It is unfair for an institution that is supposed to exist to do good to charge more to the people who are most likely to be hurt by such overcharging. BTW, hospitals regularly receive tax breaks and solicit funds as "charitable" institutions citing all the good they do. Except possibly for for-profit hospitals, they are in a completly different category than a for-profit business. <snip/> >>> The difference is that the vast majority of hospitals exist to do >>> good, not to make a profit. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > profit." They exist to serve the public and are most like a nonprofit > hospital. Government hospitals are paid for by taxes; this is an entirely different mechanism from one which funds nonprofits. I'm not even sure why it's necessary to mention such an obvious fact, since it has no bearing on the discussion. But what can you do? <snipped: statistics> >>> They were founded for a charitable >>> purpose, usually by religious or charitable organizations. Only [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Patients are treated individually, not in bulk. The inability of the major portions of the population to think clearly will be an obstacle to successful health-care reform. Take for example, the statement above, breathtaking in its obtuseness. Of course, patients are treatd individually. But that doesn't mean that hospitals are unable to accurately predict a patient load given the feeder population covered by a particular insurance plan. The insurance company basically says, we cover X people, of which Y% will in all likelihood need your services. (It's a little more complicated than multiplying X by Y%. If the hospital doesn't contract with the insurance company, some patients will still choose the hospital "out of network" anyway. And if the hospital does contract with the insurance company, some patients will still go elsewhere.) Nevertheless, contracts with insurance company offer a hospital a chance to increase its patient load, and that increase in business is the basis for discounts on care. And we haven't even gotten to people who think chiropractors and "wholistic" practitioners count as health-care providers. > But that evades the > issue: It is unfair for an institution that is supposed to exist to do > good to charge more to the people who are most likely to be hurt by > such overcharging. Well, here's the basic problem: you're a fool. Medicine is a profession, and hospitals are businesses. That medicine is supposed to do good is irrelevant. Health care is supposed to make money and support those who provide that care. > BTW, hospitals regularly receive tax breaks and > solicit funds as "charitable" institutions citing all the good they > do. Except possibly for for-profit hospitals, they are in a completly > different category than a for-profit business. Thanks for sharing. But so what? If as a society, we think it "unfair" that some people are uninsured and unable to get health care, then we need to change the rules by which the health care industry operates. This will not be accomplished by people who think that hospitals are unfair because they respond to market pressures. > The difference is that the vast majority of hospitals exist to do good, not > to make a profit. They were founded for a charitable purpose, usually by > religious or charitable organizations. Only about 18% of hospitals are > for-profit (and even most of them benefit from some sort of public > assistance directly or indirectly). > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital That doesn't mean that they don't want to slash their costs. And go read about capitation, where medical providers make more money if they deny care to people than if they let the people get the care they need. I work in a doctor's office, and trust me, there is far more financial risk in taking an uninsured patient than an insured patient, because they are more likely to skip out on paying their bill; whereas, with insurance you have more likelihood of it being paid. So the cost to the hospital for uninsured patients can be more if you include collection efforts. > The hospital does not get the premiums; the insurance company does.. The > cost is the same to the hospital whether the person has insurance or not. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > health insurance is so high now that many if not most people can't afford > it. > >> "Uninsured families who go to the hospital for needed care are often > >> charged exorbitant rates, often much higher than the rate for insured [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Why can't the insured people offset this cost as well? insurance agency negotiate a favorable pricing structure for their policy holders much in the same way a union will negotiate a salary rate for its workers or a trade guild inforces labor rates. Hospital care is not a free-market system per se but an oligarchy- monopoly system run by a few large health care conglomerates, the Catholic Church Hospital system, Medstar, Kaiser, and soforth. To get a lower price you need to get treated at a hospital located in a different country like China, India, or Singapore. It's impossible to negotiated with hospital because the laws and current business practices favor the health care provider not the patient On Jul 26, 9:40 am, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote: snip << Eight hundred dollars a Canadian womans' bill for a warm blanket after the birth of her baby when she happened to give birth in the US. Bills like that should raise a .. flag .. with ANY good .. cop .. LONG before now .. Sooooo they PRESS headlines like this .. "2,678 visits from 9 people over 6 years" One might wonder exactly WHAT the **actual** cost here was BEFORE they wrote this horrendous "loss" out of their .. **tax bill** .. Wouldn't it be nice to inflate the price of your loss eight times and THEN use it against the tax bill .. ? THEN get .. creative .. hire someone to hire someone to round up the homeless and drop em on your doorstep to be 'treated' in the .. slow times of day .. or even not treat them at all .. ---------- Austin ER’s got 2,678 visits from 9 people over 6 years Task force seeking ways to divert non-emergencies away from emergency rooms. By Mary Ann Roser Wednesday, April 01, 2009 In the past six years, eight people from Austin and one from Luling racked up 2,678 emergency room visits in Central Texas, costing hospitals, taxpayers and others $3 million, according to a report from a nonprofit made up of hospitals and other providers that care for the uninsured and low-income Central Texans. One of the nine spent more than a third of last year in the ER: 145 days. That same patient totaled 554 ER visits from 2003 through 2008… The report that mentioned the nine high-frequency patients didn’t include reasons for all of those ER visits and didn’t identify the patients because of privacy laws. But Kitchen, a former state legislator from Austin, gave a sketch: All nine speak English; three are homeless; five are women whose average age is 40, and four are men whose average age is 50. Seven have a mental health diagnosis and eight have a drug abuse diagnosis. Kitchen said she did not know their citizenship status. Kitchen estimated that each ER visit averaged about $1,000. The cost represents a national average for all ER patients, said Anjum Khurshid, the ICC’s director of clinical research and evaluation and co-author of the report. The ICC, whose mission is to work with safety-net providers to improve access to and quality of care, has a database of 750,000 uninsured and underinsured Central Texas patients collected from its members. That database is confidential because of patient privacy laws. It found that 900 frequent users — people who visited an ER six or more times in three months — had 2,123 preventable visits in 2007, or 18 percent of 11,600 total visits to Central Texas ERs, which cost more than $2 million. Among those picking up the bill were hospitals and taxpayers, including government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, Kitchen said. She defined a preventable visit as one in which the patient could have been treated earlier in a different setting, such as a clinic, avoiding the trip to the ER… In a report last year, Austin-Travis County Emergency Medical Services said that 10 patients made up more than 1 percent of the system’s 130,000 contacts with patients in two years. The patients’ most common ailments were stomach or chest pains, injuries or respiratory problems. Who loves ya. Tom Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3 DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk > >http://www.consumersunion.org/health/unisuredfctwc.htm > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > going to private or public health clinic when extreme > measures are not necessary. Rusty da Retard On Jul 27, 10:01 am, ken <flakey...@earthlink.net> wrote: snip << The way you follow .. me .. around .. I'd think you like me .. atheist .. Heh .. heh .. How's that .. feeeel .. atheist .. Describe it .. as an atheist .. predator .. Does it like .. give you a .. rush .. ? Heh .. heh .. Who loves ya. Tom Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3 DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.