Blog

We are pleased to announce the upcoming launch of a new feature on our site: "In The News" helps identifies doctors, dentists, therapists, and others who are mentioned in the news. We currently index about 700 news publishers and scan for names of providers. For examples of providers who we have identified in the news, follow us on Twitter.

We are pleased to announce the upcoming launch of a new feature on our site: "In The News" helps identifies doctors, dentists, therapists, and others who are mentioned in the news. We currently index about 700 news publishers and scan for names of providers. For examples of providers who we have identified in the news, follow us on Twitter.

We have worked on this feature for over a year, and are glad to finally release it. We hope identification of providers in the news help give patients additional context about providers that they might choose to seek treatment from. Many times, the news articles might be asking a provider for some thoughts about a certain topic: that might suggest that that provider is recognized as an expert in his or her field. Some news articles might talk about accomplishments that a provider has achieved, and some other news articles might talk about scandals that the provider has been a part of. Sometimes, there are personal notes that have been publicly reported (e.g. a wedding announcement). We hope users find this feature helpful.

Kaiser Health News published an interesting rumination on the federal government's recommendation for adults to get the recently approved updates to Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID vaccines. While people believe the vaccine to be "safe and effective," Kaiser Health News raised the question of whether the new vaccine is cost-effective given its incremental benefit. In this particular case, the article mentions a 5% benefit, but since US citizens will generally only want the updated vaccine, the government's recommendation might cause a recently announced $3.2 billion acquisition of the original vaccine to be obsolete. Apparently, even several members of the CDC advisory committee that voted for the recommendation had concerns about the lack of data suggesting a material improvement.

Kaiser Health News published an interesting rumination on the federal government's recommendation for adults to get the recently approved updates to Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID vaccines. While people believe the vaccine to be "safe and effective," Kaiser Health News raised the question of whether the new vaccine is cost-effective given its incremental benefit. In this particular case, the article mentions a 5% benefit, but since US citizens will generally only want the updated vaccine, the government's recommendation might cause a recently announced $3.2 billion acquisition of the original vaccine to be obsolete. Apparently, even several members of the CDC advisory committee that voted for the recommendation had concerns about the lack of data suggesting a material improvement.

While this is a specific example, there is a broader issue that people generally lack information as to whether a specific updated drug or treatment is worth the incremental cost. Pharmaceutical companies frequently update a drug, but without data about how much more effective the newer drugs are and how much extra they will cost, prescribers and the general public might not be able to make an informed decision about whether the more expensive drugs are worthwhile to purchase.

Signed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act has again been challenged on legal grounds. Kaiser Health News discussed elements of the challenge. The latest ruling from a federal judge is that one task force lacks appropriate authority to determine which services can be required to be covered by insurance companies at no cost to the patient. Perhaps more interestingly, the judge also ruled that forcing self-insured employers to fund certain services that are against the company's owners' religious beliefs violates federal law.

Signed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act has again been challenged on legal grounds. Kaiser Health News discussed elements of the challenge. The latest ruling from a federal judge is that one task force lacks appropriate authority to determine which services can be required to be covered by insurance companies at no cost to the patient. Perhaps more interestingly, the judge also ruled that forcing self-insured employers to fund certain services that are against the company's owners' religious beliefs violates federal law.

The federal judge who ruled on this recent case has previously ruled against the Affordable Care Act and was subsequently overturned. The judicial landscape might have sufficiently changed in the intervening years that a different outcome is possible, but we likely will not know for years, as it might take that long for the case to be resolved through the appeals process.

Reports about healthcare staffing shortages have been in the news, and Kaiser Health News discussed some challenges facing some hospitals in Montana (likely representative of a number of hospitals around the country). As with other industries, healthcare providers have been hit with inflation. However, growth in payroll costs for healthcare providers have likely exceeded similar growth for other industries, at least in part due to the amount of training that a person becoming a nurse or a physician requires. Compounding the challenge is that hospitals traditionally operate with thin margins, making the variability over the pandemic that much more difficult to manage. While many hospitals received federal funding during the pandemic, such additional funding has understandably tapered.

Reports about healthcare staffing shortages have been in the news, and Kaiser Health News discussed some challenges facing some hospitals in Montana (likely representative of a number of hospitals around the country). As with other industries, healthcare providers have been hit with inflation. However, growth in payroll costs for healthcare providers have likely exceeded similar growth for other industries, at least in part due to the amount of training that a person becoming a nurse or a physician requires. Compounding the challenge is that hospitals traditionally operate with thin margins, making the variability over the pandemic that much more difficult to manage. While many hospitals received federal funding during the pandemic, such additional funding has understandably tapered.

Undoubtedly, healthcare institutions will be negotiating for higher compensation. The longer-term solution for these challenges is unclear, but simply giving healthcare institutions more money likely is not a sustainable solution, given that health care already consumes over a sixth of the nations' economy.

Kaiser Health News posted a story in their Bill of the Month series about a patient who used a provider's cost estimator and ended up receiving a bill from the same provider that was for much more. The cost estimator estimated that an uninsured patient would owe about $1,400 for the procedure, and the bill for the individual (who was insured) came out to almost $18,000. Since the patient had a high-deductible plan, her out-of-pocket bill exceeded $5,000.

Kaiser Health News posted a story in their Bill of the Month series about a patient who used a provider's cost estimator and ended up receiving a bill from the same provider that was for much more. The cost estimator estimated that an uninsured patient would owe about $1,400 for the procedure, and the bill for the individual (who was insured) came out to almost $18,000. Since the patient had a high-deductible plan, her out-of-pocket bill exceeded $5,000.

It certainly seems odd that the price for an insured patient (almost $18,000) should be about twice the price for an uninsured patient. One issue is that the service provider claims that the cost estimator tool should have estimated a price "between $8,000 and $11,500," not the $1,500 that was shown. It seems that when a patient relies on the cost estimator tool of a specific provider and ends up being billed a very different number by that same provider, the provider should bear liability for giving incorrect information and at least reduce the charge. There appears to be an additional complication where the provider was unable to give a price before the procedure. In this case, the service organization cited not knowing which procedure would be used (and therefore being unable to provide a price). The individual clinician performing this particular procedure would know which procedure would be used before starting the procedure, but likely would not have pricing information available to the patient so the patient could then decide whether or not to continue with the procedure. The inability for a patient to know how much will be owed for a standard procedure before agreeing to the procedure seems bizarre and unfair to the patient. As more of these stories surface in the public consciousness, perhaps regulators will have more of an appetite to require changes so that patients can make informed choices.