[jahnu]

Honestly, when you US folks talk about how your medical bills work and are paid there is so much jargon and complexity it sounds like Star Trek techno-babble to my ears.

"I have a common but chronic ailment so all I had to do was re-route the phase-converter to the deflector shield and invert the chromaton particles in Shelk-Einstein space and we're done!"

:/

[toast0]

This is the real heart of the healthcare cost problem in the US. No party in the process knows how much anything costs, so it's unsurprising that costs go up so fast. This wouldn't be tenable in an individual pays environment, or in a government pays environment, but in the US environment where many people get coverage from employment we end up in this crazy system where there are so many parties involved in payment, that nobody knows what's going on.

In this case, the patient (A) may be getting the drug from a pharmacy (B), and the pharmacy bought the drug from the manufacturer (C), but the patient's insurance (D) is paying part of the cost of the drug, but so is the manufacturer, and insurance is paid for partially by the patient, and partially by the employer (E). There may also be direct government subsidies, and there are certainly indirect subsidies as well. Of course none of the 5 parties can really know how much anything costs, or how to reduce costs. Not to mention all the extra labor involved in administration of this complex system.

[elihu]

I didn't quite follow joshstrange's accounting so I don't know if this is what he's describing, but (unless it's been changed recently), in some states it's legal for manufacturer of an expensive medication to give coupons to customers to reimburse them for their copay.

This sounds like a nice, generous thing to do, but basically it means that the drug company is bribing the customer to force their insurance company to spend more money on their behalf.

So, imagine that a drug costs $1000 and the customer's copay is $200. The drug company can give the customer a $200 coupon to recover their copay and then raise the price of the drug to $1200. They've basically shifted the price from the customer (who decides whether or not to get the drug and is probably very sensitive to price) to the insurer. They make the same profit, but can probably sell to a lot more customers because it's "free". While they're at it, they could raise the price to $1500 or $2000, and it's still free to the customer.

I think this is a corrupt practice and it's crazy that it's even legal, but it's just one small part of the complexity and perverse incentives of our health care system.

[refurb]

and then raise the price of the drug to $1200

It doesn't work like that unless you're the only drug in class. If there are alternatives, then you'll get kicked off the formulary for a 20% price increase.

[jahnu]

Oh, wow... never even heard of that one. What a horror show.

[TimPC]

As a Canadian in the US to me this feels like a different kind of horror show. I play bridge and as a result I've been exposed to quite a lot of the elderly dying as a result of chronic conditions given the demographics of the game/sport. In Canada, it seemed we had a charity fundraiser 2-3 times a year for someone affected by some condition the government didn't want to cover due to cost. In the US, I deal with a level of convolution that might make the Byzantines envious but have a sense that the best plan on offer covers far far more than the rationed system in Canada. I think the Canadian system nets ahead on efficiency, but I'll quite readily admit that efficiency has some rather nasty tradeoffs.

[toast0]

There's certainly a discussion to be had on what level of care should be provided, how to pay for it, and what to do when the care required isn't provided.

I don't hear a lot of complaints about medicare not covering important things (but I only have limited exposure to that), and I assume a US single payer system would essentially be Medicare for all. I do hear complaints about Medicare not paying providers enough, and a lack of available providers.

A rational method of rationing care seems preferable to the current byzantine methods. My (likely naive) hope would be that spending the same amount of money on healthcare, but with fewer parties involved would provide more and better healthcare. At least we haven't reached the point where the government encourages smoking to decrease long term healthcare costs.

[makomk]

Remember how proponents of single payer like to point out that US government healthcare spending per capita is higher than many countries with single payer, even though it only covers part of the population? That's probably related.

[djsumdog]

> "I have a common but chronic ailment so all I had to do was [tech] the [tech] to the [tech] and [tech]"

Fun fact: A lot of the original Star Trek screenplays were written with [tech] everywhere and the science writers came in and tried to right some jargon that was believable.

In regards to health care, it's a mess. I spent years working in the industry and it's truly a little frightening. I've been in other country's systems before and recently put together a writeup on it:

http://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-and-t...

[techdragon]

Healthcare is one of the reasons I'm not keen to consider moving to the USA for a startup job. Sure it would be a fun adventure compared to my current cushy contracting work in Australia, but healthcare in the USA is a show compared to the ludicrously easy and high quality coverage I have in Australia.

For reference, I pay about ~$200 Australian to my personal insurance, which is a pretty generous plan with lots of extras, basic health care such has visiting a doctor for prescriptions, etc... I haven't paid a dollar for in 3 years, before that I used to pay $20 for convenience of a clinic that was open late and they didn't bill the government for the entire cost, which is common, but almost always a reasonably small fee in the multiples of $20 depending on how long you spend with the doctor. I paid this when I was a government employee, a private employee contracted to the government, and I continued to pay it when I quit to become a freelance developer, my cover has nothing to do with my job and I cannot even fathom why in the most awful circles of hell I would want my health care tied to my job. Hence my trepidation at ever subjecting myself to the American health care system.

[pimeys]

This. I'm having a chronic disease (type 1 diabetes) with a need for a CGM, an insulin pump and the fastest possible insulin analog. It's at least somehow doable here in Europe, even though it's lots of bureaucracy, but at least I get it even if I happen to lose my job or move to another city.

I know I might have good options for my therapy in US, but the risks are just too big and depending where you are the monthly expenses only for the insulin analogs might be just way too much in the worst case.

[viraptor]

I'm curious what's the insurance / clinic you go to. I'm assuming it's not a usual bulk-billing one, but one related to instance?

[nkkollaw]

So true... In Italy (or I guess most of Europe) you just go to the doctor and get it for free, if he thinks it's beneficial to your health.

[DrScump]

Just be glad that retail pricing to American consumers subsidizes pruce-controlled health systems in the rest of the world.