• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California eyes health care price controls

If we used the canadian model then medications in the US would also be outside the single payer model. They would have the EXACT same incentive they have now.

Nope. Because even though Canadian medications are "outside the single payer model".. when it comes to insurance.. the Canadian government institutes price controls on the pharmaceuticals.

Governments in Canada have instituted mechanisms intended to control drug prices. These include the establishment of a semi-judicial body by the federal government to control factory-gate prices and of various measures at the provincial level, such as formulary management, use of generics, reference-based pricing, price freezes, and limits on markups
 
Because we all know that price controls on things work out so well for everyone.

Doctor and nurse shortages soon to follow, and then rationing.

NHS hospitals ordered to cancel all routine operations in January as ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk › News
Jan 3, 2018 - Every hospital in the country has been ordered to cancel all non-urgent surgery until at least February in an unprecedented step by NHS officials. ... East of England Ambulance Service, also at maximum capacity, said some patients were being sent taxis to get them to hospital, with paramedics stuck in ...

Socialized medicine update: Britain cancels 50,000 surgeries as NHS ...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/socialized-medicine-update-britain-cancels-50-...
Jan 3, 2018 - The British government-run National Health Service has abruptly canceled 50,000 nonemergency surgeries due to overcrowding at hospitals this winter. ... Every hospital in the country has been ordered to cancel all non-urgent surgery until at least February in an unprecedented step by ...

And also this type of denying of the right to make decisions about medical care, yours or your family's.

Alfie Evans latest: Judge rejects latest bid by parents to fly toddler to Italy
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk › News › Greater Manchester News › NHS
5 hours ago - The parents of Alfie are embroiled in a legal battle over his treatment. Earlier on Tuesday Alder Hey Hospital asked people to stop phoning up to check on the condition of Alfie Evans. NHSbosses spoke out after Alfie's dad Tom Evans spoke to the media outside the hospital to say his son had been ...

Alfie Evans latest: Alfie's dad says Alder Hey have withdrawn life-support
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk › News › Greater Manchester News › NHS
18 hours ago - She said she was not "completely satisfied" that Alfie had been granted Italian citizenship. But she said any granting of Italian citizenship seemed designed to "frustrate" orders made in a British court. Police hold the line outside the entrance of Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool, as demonstrators and ...

Alfie Evans: Decision to remove life support upheld by judge - BBC ...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43302765
Mar 6, 2018 - The parents of a seriously ill toddler have lost their appeal against a High Court decision to end his life support. A judge ruled last month that doctors at Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool can stop treating 21-month-old Alfie Evans against the wishes of his parents Kate James and Tom Evans.

I still don't see the harm of letting these kid's parents (remember Charlie Gard?) decide on, and pay for, the medical treatment for their own kid.
 
California takes a break from contemplating single-payer to consider just setting commercial health care prices. ...

But isn't that in effect how it works under universal healthcare/single payer?
The doctors/surgeons are compensated by the government insurance according to a "price chart".

I never did understand how the hospital could bill us nearly $10,000 for using a hospital bed with a 20% discount if we paid the whole amount in full, but on the other hand agreed to accept only $2,500 from the insurance company.

Yes, I would like to see set prices for medical services.
 
But isn't that in effect how it works under universal healthcare/single payer?
The doctors/surgeons are compensated by the government insurance according to a "price chart".

I never did understand how the hospital could bill us nearly $10,000 for using a hospital bed with a 20% discount if we paid the whole amount in full, but on the other hand agreed to accept only $2,500 from the insurance company.

Yes, I would like to see set prices for medical services.

here is part of the reason.

When you bill privately.. pay in cash.. the hospital has a charge for that hospital bed.. but of course you got more than that. So they bill 10,000 dollars to the insurance and to you.

You paid a 20% discount.

However the insurance has something you do not have. they have bargaining power because they can direct patients to that hospital. So..say if that insurance company has 50% of marketshare of potential patients.. you are saying NO to 50% of your market if don't accept that 3500 from the hospital. and here is the kicker.. because each insurance has different reimbursement schedules.. that insurance might only pay 25% of that charge for the hospital bed.. BUT they make it up in pay 100% of charges for other things.. etc.

What the hospital charges is generally truly meaningless and that because insurance companies dictate what we get paid.

So why would I accept 3500 for a hospital bed? Because that insurance may pay 10,000 for a ventilator per day.. while another insurance pays 10,000 for the hospital bed.. but only 4000 per day for a ventilator.
 
But isn't that in effect how it works under universal healthcare/single payer?
The doctors/surgeons are compensated by the government insurance according to a "price chart".

Yes. California is proposing to let its state government set not only the prices it will pay (i.e., in its Medicaid program) but also set the prices that private insurers can/would pay.
 
Yes. California is proposing to let its state government set not only the prices it will pay (i.e., in its Medicaid program) but also set the prices that private insurers can/would pay.

cool then i guess CA will be having a hard time getting medicine for certain people.
as a company i don't have to agree to your price.
 
cool then i guess CA will be having a hard time getting medicine for certain people.
as a company i don't have to agree to your price.

The commission this bill creates wouldn't be setting the price of prescription drugs. It's purely about setting the price providers are paid, as its charge would be to: "Set the amounts accepted as payment by health plans, hospitals, physicians, physician groups, and other health care providers."

To the extent hospitals or physician groups mark up the price of drugs they buy and then charge commercial insurers those marked up prices, this would impact that practice and be a revenue hit to them. But the state wouldn't be setting drug prices at this point.
 
The commission this bill creates wouldn't be setting the price of prescription drugs. It's purely about setting the price providers are paid, as its charge would be to: "Set the amounts accepted as payment by health plans, hospitals, physicians, physician groups, and other health care providers."

To the extent hospitals or physician groups mark up the price of drugs they buy and then charge commercial insurers those marked up prices, this would impact that practice and be a revenue hit to them. But the state wouldn't be setting drug prices at this point.

again good luck with that. Hositals don't set the rates.
that is what you don't understand.

Jasper actually got this one right.

Hospitals and insurance have an agreed to price. Hospitals might bill the insurance company 3000 but the agreed to price is 2000 and that is what the insurance company will pay.

The government has no business setting pre-defined prices more so on private hospitals. I am sure there is already a lawsuit but it will have to go to the SCOTUS before it gets struck down.
 
again good luck with that. Hositals don't set the rates.
that is what you don't understand.

When systems reach the scale of say a Sutter they often do become price setters. One can't argue that providers shift some or all of the costs of public payer patients onto commercial payers without acknowledging that they have some ability to do so.

The theory behind managed care competition (i.e. insurers competing with each other to negotiate better deals with providers) as a mechanism for holding down price growth requires at least two things: 1) credible threats of exclusion from an insurer's provider network, and 2) reasonably robust and competitive insurance markets.

Many on the left and right have decided they hate narrow network insurance products (which tend to be cheaper) and many on both sides also dislike the concept of exchanges. So the managed care competition notion of insurer-provider negotiations being a key to holding down prices--the model assumed by the exchange structure in the ACA--has been under attack for a while now.

Which is why it's not surprising states like California are beginning to look beyond it.

The government has no business setting pre-defined prices more so on private hospitals. I am sure there is already a lawsuit but it will have to go to the SCOTUS before it gets struck down.

This isn't a new concept, numerous states set hospital rates for decades. Maryland still does it.

Starting in the late 1960s and early 1970s at least 27 states implemented programs with support from the federal government to either review or directly regulate hospital rates and budgets. State-based rate setting authority was used to achieve several objectives: constraining total hospital expenditures, improving payment equity, reducing price discrimination, supporting hospitals by financing uncompensated care, and reducing a state’s Medicaid budget.
Mandatory rate setting first developed in New York State in 1971 with the establishment of a program, eventually housed in the state Department of Health, that covered hospital rates paid by Medicaid and Blue Cross. Massachusetts also created an independent rate setting commission around this time that was empowered to approve Blue Cross contracts with all Massachusetts hospitals and set rates for Medicaid beginning in 1975. New Jersey similarly began setting rates in 1974 for only Blue Cross and Medicaid, under the aegis of the state Department of Health. Independent commissions with the authority to set rates for non-Medicare payers in Maryland, Washington, and Connecticut also started setting rates in 1974, 1975, and 1976, respectively. Later to the rate setting game were systems in Rochester, New York, and the Finger Lakes area of New York in 1980, which were established with the goal of demonstrating that hospital cost containment could be achieved through the use of communitywide all-payer hospital global budgets. The West Virginia system was implemented in 1985 and applied only to commercial insurers (including Blue Cross plans).

Most were discontinued by the '90s when managed care competition became the favored approach to keeping prices down.
 
The head of the California Hospital Association put out a tough rebuttal this week:

Bill won’t control health care costs in California, but it will devastate hospitals
Last week, a bill that would dismantle California’s health care delivery system as we know it was introduced in the Legislature. Assembly Bill 3087 would penalize millions of patients through massive cuts in services and result in as many as 175,000 hospital workers losing their jobs.

The sponsors of AB 3087 – which is to be heard Tuesday by the Assembly Health Committee – falsely believe that this bill would lower health care costs by imposing a mandatory rate-setting system on doctors, hospitals, dentists and insurers.

They claim their proposal is based on a similar system that operates in Maryland. As the former head of the Maryland Hospital Association, I know that nothing could be further from the truth.
Another difference: In Maryland, the state is required o pay rates that at least cover the cost of care delivered by efficient providers. AB 3087, by contrast, ties payment rates to a percentage of what Medicare pays. Medicare rates, set by Congress, are often based on political priorities in Washington, D.C., not California.

The Maryland system also was designed to control the annual rate of increase in the cost of inpatient hospital services. The California proposal is not about controlling the rate of increase at all. Instead, it would actually cut and “re-base” amounts paid to providers and plans to some unspecified percentage of Medicare payments.

The counterpoint comes from a consumer group:

This bill will control health care costs and protect California patients
Health care prices are just too high. Last month when Attorney General Xavier Becerra sued Sutter Health, one of California’s largest hospital chains, for anti-competitive practices and prices, he pointed to a problem not just with one provider, but to out-of-control health care pricing.
The dirty secret of our health system is that what we pay has little relation to how much it costs to provide the service, the quality of the care, or our health outcomes. Instead, prices are largely determined by the relative monopoly power of the health provider and health plan. A recent UC Berkeley study detailed significant consolidation in California’s health care system and how that inflates prices. In concentrated markets – including 44 of 58 counties and especially in Northern California – there is less competition and prices are driven up. Californians pay a markup of 33 percent to 66 percent for physician services, and almost 80 percent for inpatient services.

Americans pay more than anyone else in the world for health care, and it’s not because we use health care more. Unlike other countries, we allow our health providers – including hospitals, health plans, doctors and drug companies – to charge whatever they want with little or no oversight. Our system is financially breaking uninsured and underinsured patients, stunting middle-class wage growth and creating an unsustainable health system.
When patients go to a doctor’s office or hospital, they often don’t know the cost, nor can they turn down treatment in most cases. The proposed commission will bring light to a system that has kept consumers in the dark, and allowed health care prices to climb faster than inflation or wages year after year.

This common-sense reform would provide oversight in health care very similar to that for utilities and other essential services. Like regulated utilities, health care providers would be guaranteed financial viability and even a return on investment, but they wouldn’t be allowed to use their monopoly power to take advantage of consumers.
 
The head of the California Hospital Association put out a tough rebuttal this week:

Bill won’t control health care costs in California, but it will devastate hospitals



The counterpoint comes from a consumer group:

This bill will control health care costs and protect California patients

the counterpoint from the consumer group is pretty ignorant of how healthcare works.

Little to no oversight? Insurance companies, medicare and Medicaid all dictate what providers get paid.. not the other way around.
 
Back
Top Bottom