radnyc wrote:Same results, half the cost.
http://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center ... comes.html
"Among patients newly diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer, the study found average per-patient costs across all chemotherapy treatments were $12,345 per month in Western Washington state and $6,195 per month in neighboring British Columbia. The poster notes that “overall survival was no different between the two locations.”
There's something really wrong here...
NHMike wrote:radnyc wrote:Same results, half the cost. ........There's something really wrong here...
Those are retail rates. Negotiated insured rates are far lower.
I had one infusion that was billed at $11,000. The insured cost was $1,000.
I've negotiated on healthcare bills for my mother (when she didn't have sufficient Medicare coverage) - hospitals will often take much smaller payments if you do actually pay them. Because there are lots that don't pay. So they raise retail prices to compensate for those that don't pay.
NHMike wrote:
I've negotiated on healthcare bills for my mother (when she didn't have sufficient Medicare coverage)
KimT wrote:My cousins wife is a pathologist at a university hospital near me. She explained why healthcare billing is the way it is. It’s all about what the insurance will pay. A hospital will make their rates, and insurance companies come back and might declare, we will pay 30%. A year later they might decide they will only pay 25%. So hospitals raise rates to get the same payment as before. This is why bills look so high and actual payments paid by insurance is so low. I have noticed in the past few years how hospitals are getting sneaky about trying to squeeze more money out of patients. They will call before your operation or procedure and say this is what you owe according to your insurance plan. We will give you a 10% discount if you pay now. It sounds good but they are billing you according to what they charge and not the rate your insurer pays. If you are responsible for say 20%, you owe 20% of what your insurance agrees to pay, not 20% of what they charge.
NYTimes - Jan 2018 wrote: A large part of the answer can be found in the title of a 2003 paper in Health Affairs by the Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt: “It’s the prices, stupid.” . . . people in the U.S. typically use about the same amount of health care as people in other wealthy countries do, but pay a lot more for it.
. . . .spends almost twice as much on health care, as a percentage of its economy, as other advanced industrialized countries — totaling $3.3 trillion, or 17.9 percent of gross domestic product in 2016. But a few decades ago American health care spending was much closer to that of peer nations.
NYTimes - May 2018 wrote:Medical Mystery: Something Happened to U.S. Health Spending After 1980
The spending began soaring beyond that of other advanced nations, but without the same benefits in life expectancy.
LeonW wrote:Expensive?NYTimes - Jan 2018 wrote: A large part of the answer can be found in the title of a 2003 paper in Health Affairs by the Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt: “It’s the prices, stupid.” . . . people in the U.S. typically use about the same amount of health care as people in other wealthy countries do, but pay a lot more for it.
. . . .spends almost twice as much on health care, as a percentage of its economy, as other advanced industrialized countries — totaling $3.3 trillion, or 17.9 percent of gross domestic product in 2016. But a few decades ago American health care spending was much closer to that of peer nations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/upshot/us-health-care-expensive-country-comparison.html
Effective?NYTimes - May 2018 wrote:Medical Mystery: Something Happened to U.S. Health Spending After 1980
The spending began soaring beyond that of other advanced nations, but without the same benefits in life expectancy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/upshot/medical-mystery-health-spending-1980.html
SteveNZ wrote:One thing that works well here in New Zealand is also a strong input into preventative medicine. Being the role of the national health department.
For example for a while there was concern at the rate of deaths from prostate cancer. So a nationwide system to inform folk and get medical checks was set in place. Including pretty good advertising (in the middle of TV news or ball games), a few celebrities came on board to help and there was offered subsidised initial checks (meaning zero cost, in most GP's).
A while ago we had a similar thing for Rubella and also warnings about coughs in children.
I am not sure how common this type of thing is in other countries. We are of a size (think of a single small state) that this is logistically easy to do.
Do insurance company's push preventative medicine for customers? It saves money in the long term.
NHMike wrote:There are a lot of areas in the United States where care is difficult to find. And great care even harder to find. And these areas drag down national statistics. But there are also areas with great care available. The other side of the healthcare coin is the level in which people take care of themselves and we do not do well there.
NYTimes, tonight wrote: experts suggested two main reasons: The United States didn’t impose the same types of government cost controls on health care that other nations did, and we invested less in social programs that also promote health.
and . . .
Investor-owned, shareholder-driven, for-profit companies became common in health care for the first time. They focused on revenue and profit maximization, not cost control.
LeonW wrote:NHMike wrote:There are a lot of areas in the United States where care is difficult to find. And great care even harder to find. And these areas drag down national statistics. But there are also areas with great care available. The other side of the healthcare coin is the level in which people take care of themselves and we do not do well there.
NYTimes came up with a follow-up publication tonight, that also contributes part of the rising costs to (lack of) programs to promote health. But they also mention that deregulation lead to 'for-profit health care companies".NYTimes, tonight wrote: experts suggested two main reasons: The United States didn’t impose the same types of government cost controls on health care that other nations did, and we invested less in social programs that also promote health.
and . . .
Investor-owned, shareholder-driven, for-profit companies became common in health care for the first time. They focused on revenue and profit maximization, not cost control.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/upshot/reagan-deregulation-and-americas-exceptional-rise-in-health-care-costs.html?em_pos=small&emc=edit_up_20180604&nl=upshot&nl_art=1&nlid=83773013emc%3Dedit_up_20180604&ref=headline&te=1
NHMike wrote:If we look at world rankings, we find that 17 out of the top 20 hospitals are in the United States with the United States also holding the top 7 spots.
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/en/World
Utwo wrote:NHMike wrote:If we look at world rankings, we find that 17 out of the top 20 hospitals are in the United States with the United States also holding the top 7 spots.
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/en/World
This is similar to what my doctor told me: "Best hospitals in the US are better than best hospitals in Canada".
So US patients who can get access to MD Anderson, Cleveland, Massachusetts General, Memorial Sloan Kettering etc. are getting the best treatment that can't be received anywhere else in the world (Canada, NS, Australia, Europe etc.).
Return to “Colon Talk - Colon cancer (colorectal cancer) support forum”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher and 153 guests