Blog

Often times, we might think it's better to "be safe than sorry" and in the medical context, that could mean ordering unnecessary tests. California Healthline reported on the financial costs of unnecessary tests (estimated by some to be at least $200 billion) and in some cases, the health costs of excessive testing.

Often times, we might think it's better to "be safe than sorry" and in the medical context, that could mean ordering unnecessary tests. California Healthline reported on the financial costs of unnecessary tests (estimated by some to be at least $200 billion) and in some cases, the health costs of excessive testing.

Fortunately, some payers and even some providers are trying to address the issue of unnecessary tests. The efforts seem early-stage and experimental so far; nevertheless, that both payers and providers are giving consideration to the issue is encouraging. The article cited a particularly interesting case of one medical center eliminating a testing requirement before a procedure and patients on average being able to undergo the procedure six months earlier.

In light of the passage of the American Health Care Act in the House of Representatives, there has been substantial outcry regarding the anticipated effects on people with pre-existing conditions and on those with lower incomes. Less commonly heard are voices (outside of politics) in support of the bill. It's interesting that The New York Times decided to publish a story representing those voices. Related to the cost of health care, Kaiser Health News published a piece on how under the version of the bill passed by the House, some states might need to dial back on patient protections in light of reduced federal subsidies.

In light of the passage of the American Health Care Act in the House of Representatives, there has been substantial outcry regarding the anticipated effects on people with pre-existing conditions and on those with lower incomes. Less commonly heard are voices (outside of politics) in support of the bill. It's interesting that The New York Times decided to publish a story representing those voices. Related to the cost of health care, Kaiser Health News published a piece on how under the version of the bill passed by the House, some states might need to dial back on patient protections in light of reduced federal subsidies.

The Affordable Care Act and the American Health Care Act try to answer questions of whether there should be patient protections and whether there should be subsidies for expensive health care. Neither legislation meaningfully address the question of whether healthcare costs can be reduced, and if so, how. The financial burden for health care can shift between government and individuals, but if the underlying growth in cost is not addressed, simply answering the question of who pays will be insufficient.

We've been busy preparing changes to our website and recently made an architectural change that affects our profile pages. The profile pages should now load faster, especially when users visit another tab soon after first visiting the profile. For the interim, we have stopped supporting showing hospital profiles. We hope to show them again at some point in the future.

We've been busy preparing changes to our website and recently made an architectural change that affects our profile pages. The profile pages should now load faster, especially when users visit another tab soon after first visiting the profile. For the interim, we have stopped supporting showing hospital profiles. We hope to show them again at some point in the future.

This change is part of a larger series of changes to overhaul our website. The goals of the changes include making the site faster and laying a better technical foundation so that future improvements can be developed more quickly.

People often wonder why health care in the United States is so expensive. The answer is complex, as they are many reasons. One of the reasons that Kaiser Health News highlighted in a recent article is that so many people work in the industry: over 10% of working Americans work in health care. It would be one thing if nearly everyone worked in the actual delivery of or product development for health care (still not the best situation, as that would imply Americans frequently become sick) , but the article reported that more than eight percent of US healthcare spending was on administration (compared to a global average of three percent): "America spent $631 for every man, woman and child on health insurance administration for 2012 compared with $54 in Japan."

People often wonder why health care in the United States is so expensive. The answer is complex, as they are many reasons. One of the reasons that Kaiser Health News highlighted in a recent article is that so many people work in the industry: over 10% of working Americans work in health care. It would be one thing if nearly everyone worked in the actual delivery of or product development for health care (still not the best situation, as that would imply Americans frequently become sick) , but the article reported that more than eight percent of US healthcare spending was on administration (compared to a global average of three percent): "America spent $631 for every man, woman and child on health insurance administration for 2012 compared with $54 in Japan."

It's unclear where the industry is headed from here, but in many ways, the industry does not seem healthy.

Carnegie Mellon University published a paper about how the government should cultivate competition in the world of health care. There are a number of recommendations to improve transparency, including creating and distributing quality measures and requiring insurers to "clearly and accurately" identify network coverage and to disclose out-of-pocket costs to patients. The paper also recommends making it easier for competitors to enter the market by removing restrictions and to facilitate telehealth.

Carnegie Mellon University published a paper about how the government should cultivate competition in the world of health care. There are a number of recommendations to improve transparency, including creating and distributing quality measures and requiring insurers to "clearly and accurately" identify network coverage and to disclose out-of-pocket costs to patients. The paper also recommends making it easier for competitors to enter the market by removing restrictions and to facilitate telehealth.

The recommendations seem like they would go a long way in promoting competition within health care and empowering patients to make more informed choices when selecting providers. However, getting enough stakeholders to meaningfully implementing these recommendations seems like a daunting task.