[assblaster]

Medicaid is already at the lowest payment rate, so balance billing to that would be a net negative actually.

Why should hospitals and doctors be forced to accept contacts from insurers that underpay for services rendered for nothing in return (being part of limited network)?

[falsedan]

> so balance billing to that would be a net negative actually

If the regulated standard treatment costs were somehow lower than the actual delivery costs, sure. But how on eath could that happen? It's in everyone's best interest for hospital administrators to be heavily involved in setting these costs, and they have no interest in losing money.

[assblaster]

Hospital administrators are the problem. They don't contribute to medical care, and their job is to increase profit that goes to higher salaries of themselves and other administrators.

Regarding balance billing:

If Medicaid pays $100 for a $500 procedure, and private insurance pays $400 with the expectation of a 20% coinsurance from the patient but patient refuses to pay, who is going to pay the other $100? Is the expectation that hospitals or doctors shouldn't be compensated for services rendered? Should they work for free and go out of business?

What other business exists where it's ok for people to get something and refuse to pay the bill? Auto repair? Groceries? Legal advice? Housing construction? Land purchase? Auto fuel? Electricity?

[falsedan]

> If Medicaid pays $100 for a $500 procedure

On what planet would the special interest groups responsible for setting reimbursements make it less than the cost of delivery?

Let's try again:

> If a medical provider overcharges $100 for a $400 procedure

Ok now your position makes more sense. Debt recovery is a well-known problem and yes, providers write it off or sell the debt on.

> What other business exists where it's ok for people to get something and refuse to pay the bill?

Loans, contracts, anything covered by tort law really.

[assblaster]

>On what planet would the special interest groups responsible for setting reimbursements make it less than the cost of delivery?

Take a guess what Medicaid pays for a labor epidural for a pregnant mother, which involves putting a very large needle next to a woman's spinal cord, with possible complications of paralysis, death, headache, back pain, infection, failure of epidural, etc?

If you run a hospital where 100% of patients are on Medicaid, the hospital will shut down immediately.

Medicaid simply pays less than the cost of delivery, and it does so because government knows it can get away with it. The government can impose its will with regulation and certification.

You have no idea how ridiculously underpaying Medicaid is. Can you imagine what would happen if government mandated that Facebook employees could only be paid a maximum of 10/hour?

[andruby]

> Take a guess what Medicaid pays for a labor epidural for a pregnant mother, which involves putting a very large needle next to a woman's spinal cord, with possible complications of paralysis, death, headache, back pain, infection, failure of epidural, etc?

I've looked up the price and for one hospital in Belgium [0]. The rates, including the room you stay in, are:

Uninsured: €140~€420 Insured: €17~€200 Insured with low income: €10~€190

The large variation is due to shared common room vs single personal room.

An epidural really shouldn't be insanely expensive. Of course, exposure to litigation and risk for the doctor is much lower here.

[0] https://www.azdelta.be/nl/patient/wat-het-u-zal-kosten/prijs... (in dutch)

[sjg007]

This is not true.

https://www.kff.org/report-section/understanding-medicaid-ho...