health care "inflation"?

[Azazello1313]

just happened across this interesting interview....this bit in particular caught my attention, frames it in a way I never really considered:

 

If I compare healthcare costs today versus in the year 1800, well, I could go out and buy a bunch of leeches today for almost nothing. And I could have the healthcare I had in 1800. If you had a certain condition and you had $10,000 to get treated at today’s health prices, or $10,000 to get treated at 1960s prices with 1960s technology, I don’t think it’s so obvious that people would want to go back in time to get their important health conditions dealt with. In that sense, you say, I don’t know if there’s inflation. It’s pretty hard to say that there’s been a lot of inflation over the long haul in healthcare.

[BeeR]

It’s pretty hard to say that paragraph above has any sound logic whatsoever, frankly.

[Azazello1313]

It’s pretty hard to say that paragraph above has any sound logic whatsoever, frankly.

 

or perhaps you don't understand the terms and concepts being talked about

[BeeR]

To be fair, I was just talking about what you quoted, not the whole article FYI. But given that, maybe you don't understand there is an apples-to-oranges thing being done there that isn't just comparing healthcare costs, but also quality/medical advances or ability at a given time.

 

But OK. What's said above isn't necessarily "wrong" but it is at best just stating the obvious and a huge and pointless oversimplification.

 

Regardless, it's not hard to say that there's been a lot of inflation over the long haul in healthcare. It's actually easy and accurate, and one needn't make silly and equally pointless comparisons to the 1800s to see it.

Edited June 14, 2011 by BeeR

[Azazello1313]

To be fair, I was just talking about what you quoted, not the whole article FYI. But given that, maybe you don't understand there is an apples-to-oranges thing being done there that isn't just comparing healthcare costs, but also quality/medical advances or ability at a given time.

 

exactly, but inflation measures the cost of an apple in 1960 versus an apple now. increased costs because you're getting more is not inflation. that is precisely the guy's point.

[yo mama]

or perhaps you don't understand the terms and concepts being talked about

That's only because no one was killed by a bear in this story.

[yo mama]

exactly, but inflation measures the cost of an apple in 1960 versus an apple now. increased costs because you're getting more is not inflation. that is precisely the guy's point.

Agreed.

[Ursa Majoris]

exactly, but inflation measures the cost of an apple in 1960 versus an apple now. increased costs because you're getting more is not inflation. that is precisely the guy's point.

And he makes a good point too. Which begs the question of why, when we're getting so much more, the cost is so much of a problem for us. Don't we want it?

 

Or do we want it but we're unwilling to pay for it, as with so many other things?

[BeeR]

exactly, but inflation measures the cost of an apple in 1960 versus an apple now. increased costs because you're getting more is not inflation. that is precisely the guy's point.

Despite the fact that you aren't necessarily getting more? Again, it's an extreme oversimplification. I would agree if we're talking cancer or hip replacements. Not so much so for many less severe things, which are far more common - again meaning that typically, most people are not "getting more."

 

And none of this changes that healthcare costs are easily out-pacing inflation, even in recent years.

Edited June 15, 2011 by BeeR

[Duchess Jack]

exactly, but inflation measures the cost of an apple in 1960 versus an apple now. increased costs because you're getting more is not inflation. that is precisely the guy's point.

 

The problem is that we're talkng about a pretty broad thing here. You might as well compare the spaceshuttle versus a pair of snow shoes and somehow suggest that it points to an increase in the cost of transportation

[bpwallace49]

Considering that the majority of health care costs are incurred in the last few years of life, arent we just throwing more money at something that is inevitable?

 

If I broke my toe in 1800, 1960 or today, they still cant do jack SHAM WOW! for it. But nowadays I would pay over a hundred bucks to have a doctor tell me now with an Xray "yep . . its broken. Nothing we can do for it. Tape it to your other toe"

[Avernus]

Considering that the majority of health care costs are incurred in the last few years of life, arent we just throwing more money at something that is inevitable?

 

If I broke my toe in 1800, 1960 or today, they still cant do jack SHAM WOW! for it. But nowadays I would pay over a hundred bucks to have a doctor tell me now with an Xray "yep . . its broken. Nothing we can do for it. Tape it to your other toe"

 

 

this depends on what the cost of seeing a doctor over a broken toe was in 1800 or 1960 and how that is relative to the amount of inflation we've seen currently...

 

if anything we could be paying less to see a doctor, I mean we actually paid more for gas in 1964 than we do now....at least 33% more at that....the technology allows for the price to go up because it is considered flawless, but the price would have gone up naturally anyways...

 

by an inflation calculator, today's $100 doctor visit would be about $13.16 in 1960.....so how much was your dr. visit compared to today?....and we would need relative prices...it's pretty complicated...

 

another thing that muddies this is the fact that quarters and dimes were monetized by their weight in silver (90%)...so using an inflation calculator makes that unclear because you have to adjust by that as well...but I think the paper value is an easier barometer....again, it's complicated....

[SayItAintSoJoe]

I think another factor to the raising health care costs is medication. I wonder how many medications the average person over 50 is on today compared to 1960. Can all this medication truly be necessary?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

And he makes a good point too. Which begs the question of why, when we're getting so much more, the cost is so much of a problem for us. Don't we want it?

 

Or do we want it but we're unwilling to pay for it, as with so many other things?

 

Do we have health care inflation, or health care insurance inflation? I'd like to see a study that examines which has grown faster, the charges of health care providers, or the rates of insurers.

[Avernus]

Do we have health care inflation, or health care insurance inflation? I'd like to see a study that examines which has grown faster, the charges of health care providers, or the rates of insurers.

 

would you also have to factor in population growth and how many doctors there are in certain fields?...

[SEC=UGA]

Do we have health care inflation, or health care insurance inflation? I'd like to see a study that examines which has grown faster, the charges of health care providers, or the rates of insurers.

 

This is a valid and interesting question to me. When I tore my Achilles tendon some years back I was in between insurance (literally by two weeks...) So I had to pay cash for the surgery. When I went in to talk to the business office at the hospital prior to surgery I was told the surgery was $23K... That is what they would have billed the insurance company. I looked at the lady and told her, "Well, I don't have $23K." She looked at me, said okay, hold on. She pecked away at her keyboard , hit a few buttons on the adding machine and said "How much money do you have?" I said "I have about $12K..." To which she responded, "Well, we can do it for $10K, that should leave you a couple grand for other emergencies..."

 

My insurance company would have been billed 23K, who knows how much they would have ended up paying out after the wrangling over the price thingy, but the Hospital was willing to do the surgery for $10K. Now, did I get some special "subsidized" surgery by the tax payers that I was unaware of? I don't know. But, it does seem that if the hospital were losing money on me or my surgery was being partially subsidized that they would have at least gone after the other $2K they knew I had.

[Ursa Majoris]

This is a valid and interesting question to me. When I tore my Achilles tendon some years back I was in between insurance (literally by two weeks...) So I had to pay cash for the surgery. When I went in to talk to the business office at the hospital prior to surgery I was told the surgery was $23K... That is what they would have billed the insurance company. I looked at the lady and told her, "Well, I don't have $23K." She looked at me, said okay, hold on. She pecked away at her keyboard , hit a few buttons on the adding machine and said "How much money do you have?" I said "I have about $12K..." To which she responded, "Well, we can do it for $10K, that should leave you a couple grand for other emergencies..."

 

My insurance company would have been billed 23K, who knows how much they would have ended up paying out after the wrangling over the price thingy, but the Hospital was willing to do the surgery for $10K. Now, did I get some special "subsidized" surgery by the tax payers that I was unaware of? I don't know. But, it does seem that if the hospital were losing money on me or my surgery was being partially subsidized that they would have at least gone after the other $2K they knew I had.

There is no way some functionary in the front office decided to lower the price by well over 50%. Ergo, the only logical answer is that the hospital is gouging the insurance company (and how ironic is that?), which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the insurance paradigm is an expensive crock, which in turn leads to the conclusion that either a single payer or total individual system (with safeguards for pre-existing conditions and whatnot) is the way to go.

[Clubfoothead]

So a 2011 Sonata is 7% better than a 2010 simply because it is the 2011 model? Not sure I buy that.

 

Who has ever argued that today's technology isn't worth the money? Of course it is. If you have access to today's technology. Which, that I am aware, is the issue.

[The Irish Doggy]

There is no way some functionary in the front office decided to lower the price by well over 50%. Ergo, the only logical answer is that the hospital is gouging the insurance company (and how ironic is that?), which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the insurance paradigm is an expensive crock, which in turn leads to the conclusion that either a single payer or total individual system (with safeguards for pre-existing conditions and whatnot) is the way to go.

 

Hospitals always have a high "price" for a given procedure. They bill the insurance company for this "price", but all the procedures have a pre-agreed discount/write off or negotiated price between the hospital and insurance company that brings the actual price down just like the 50% off sale that SEC got. So, the insurance company sends back a much lower payment with details on the discount they took. I've never understood why they play this game, but from what I've seen, all hospitals and doctor offices have this arrangement with the insurance companies.

Edited June 15, 2011 by The Irish Doggy

[Savage Beatings]

His point only makes sense if you compare 2011 healthcare costs to 1800 or 1960. What if you compare healthcare costs between 2011 and 2001 or even 2005? Then is there inflation?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Hospitals always have a high "price" for a given procedure. They bill the insurance company for this "price", but all the procedures have a pre-agreed discount/write off or negotiated price between the hospital and insurance company that brings the actual price down just like the 50% off sale that SEC got. So, the insurance company sends back a much lower payment with details on the discount they took. I've never understood why they play this game, but from what I've seen, all hospitals and doctor offices have this arrangement with the insurance companies.

 

This.

 

If you look at an income statement for a hospital you'll see gross charges and then reductions to those charges called contractuals. Each payor negotiates rates with the health care provider.

[Square]

If you look at an income statement for a hospital you'll see gross charges and then reductions to those charges called contractuals. Each payor negotiates rates with the health care provider.

And it's kept purposely complicated so the average consumer has almost no idea what is actually going on or what the true cost of anything is.

 

I saw a funny line the other day. Something to the effect of.

 

American Exceptionalism - N. Belief that having the best military makes up for having the 37th best health care system.

[Chavez]

And it's kept purposely complicated so the average consumer has almost no idea what is actually going on or what the true cost of anything is.

Right. That's the main issue with "consumer-directed" health care.

 

"Well, we need to do this."

"OK, how much is it going to cost at this hospital?"

"Ummmm....fumfuh"

"How much was that?"

[Azazello1313]

Right. That's the main issue with "consumer-directed" health care.

 

the current scheme is anything BUT "consumer-directed", and that is in many peoples' minds exactly the problem.

[Scooby's Hubby]

Doctors with Family practices are making less than ever, yet the cost of insurance goes up. George Foreman Grill?