CT Scan = $12,190.16?

[jyl]

The health care reform changes this year will significantly increase the number of people with insurance coverage. The number of un-insured aka freeloaders will decrease, not increase.

The healthcare services and drug companies I talk to - who have all analyzed the new law, obviously - see their market expanding, due to more people having insurance coverage.

The flip side, of course, is that the government is going to try to reduce the cost of some services and drugs. That's not fully addressed in the reform passed this year, but it has to happen. Despite the squeals from the healthcare industry, and all the hysteria over death panels and rationing, $12K scans suggest why this can and should happen . . .

The healthcare industry would like to "have their cake and eat it too". More customers (i.e. more people w/ insurance) and while getting more dollars per customer (i.e. healthcare cost inflation continues to be far above overall inflation and/or GDP growth). This cannot be done, not without bankrupting the country.

Healthcare spending is 17-18% of US GDP. In 2000 it was 13-14%. In 1990 it was about 12%. In 1980 it was about 8%. In 1970 it was about 7%. I'll ;post this chart later.

This is not sustainable. From an economic perspective, the US healthcare industry is dysfunctional. That's not to knock the people who work in healthcare - guys like Noah, Tobra, and many of my offline friends who are doctors. They are good people working in a very inefficient industry which is growing like a cancer in our economy.

[VINMAN]

Back in '01 when my first wife was going through radiation treatment for her cancer. Each daily treatment was $4000.

[JJ 911SC]

... free (higher income tax) North of the 49th parallel.

May have to be on a waiting list though but right away via an emergency room.

[Rikao4]

thinking billing code error..
go over the bill item by item...
not being trained in how they code..
I found 5 days of o2 treatment..
had it for ONE day..billed for 5=$ 1200.00

Rika

[nostatic]

It's actually the correct amount - a new licensing fee. You can blame my cats Milo and Twiggy. They got wind of this whole CAT scan thing and sued for violation of their personal trademark. The insurance industry, not wanting to lose the brand identity of a CAT scan, negotiated a license agreement with my cats. Actually they only get a can of food a month for the deal, but due to legal fees and administrative markup by the insurance companies, it comes to $11K.

[TechnoViking]

It's like the suit at the department store with "regular" price of $500. On sale now for $300, and then apply the 2 for 1 special coupon and you actually end up paying $150.

They over-inflate the initial price, knowing the vast majority of the folks getting that expensive procedure have insurance and the insurance companies have a negotiated lower rate.

Also, insurance companies have maximums they will pay for certain procedures in the absence of any contract with the hospital. You are then on the hook for the balance.

And I have a feeling all of this stuff may be negotiable with the hospital.

[TechnoViking]

It may not be an error. I paid $5K about 10 years ago. It really depends on the scan. Not all CAT scans are the same so be careful with these comparisons. Scanning your head only is much cheaper than your whole chest and abdomen.

[TechnoViking]

Wait till you get the bill from the radiologist

[jyl]

Chart I mentioned.

[nostatic]

And I owned cats during each of those periods. See? Mystery solved...

[jyl]

Our household "cat count" inflation rate is high too. Four now. Was 2 two years ago. None four years ago. This must be stopped, but the cat lobby is strong.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by jyl

The health care reform changes this year will significantly increase the number of people with insurance coverage. The number of un-insured aka freeloaders will decrease, not increase.

The healthcare services and drug companies I talk to - who have all analyzed the new law, obviously - see their market expanding, due to more people having insurance coverage.

The flip side, of course, is that the government is going to try to reduce the cost of some services and drugs. That's not fully addressed in the reform passed this year, but it has to happen. Despite the squeals from the healthcare industry, and all the hysteria over death panels and rationing, $12K scans suggest why this can and should happen . . .

The healthcare industry would like to "have their cake and eat it too". More customers (i.e. more people w/ insurance) and while getting more dollars per customer (i.e. healthcare cost inflation continues to be far above overall inflation and/or GDP growth). This cannot be done, not without bankrupting the country.

Healthcare spending is 17-18% of US GDP. In 2000 it was 13-14%. In 1990 it was about 12%. In 1980 it was about 8%. In 1970 it was about 7%. I'll ;post this chart later.

This is not sustainable. From an economic perspective, the US healthcare industry is dysfunctional. That's not to knock the people who work in healthcare - guys like Noah, Tobra, and many of my offline friends who are doctors. They are good people working in a very inefficient industry which is growing like a cancer in our economy.

Yeah, but cancers are treatable.

If you have the cash.

Which our government doesn't.

[RWebb]

a search on "medical profit centers" should prove illuminating

some people are greedy, and a medical degree does not always exclude a person from that category

[jyl]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Yeah, but cancers are treatable.

If you have the cash.

Which our government doesn't.

The cancer of healthcare costs is also treatable. If you have enough political will and clarity of thought. It is not clear that the country does. We have a lot of industry lobbyists protecting their clients' profits, a lot of idiots who say things like "keep government out of my Medicare", but those just make the cancer grow.

The good thing is, that this cancer will eventually stop growing. Either we make the healthcare industry (including healthcare consumers) more efficient, so that more people can have healthcare coverage that is good and affordable. Or we simply deny good healthcare coverage to more people - private employers will drop healthcare benefits or make them unaffordable, putting more people into indigent care (Medicare) or wholly un-insured. Which is what has been happening since 1980. One way or the other, healthcare spending as a percent of GDP will eventually stop rising.

a broad picture of long-term trends in health insurance coverage for the population under age 65 years, of whom 43.3 million were uninsured in 2007. The percentage of the nonelderly population with private coverage rose between 1959 and 1968 to about 79% and remained stable until 1980. During the 1980s, the percentage with no health insurance coverage increased, while the percentage with private coverage declined and the percentage with Medicaid remained stable. Since 1990, the percentage of persons under age 65 who are uninsured has remained stable, while the percentage with private coverage continued to decline and the percentage with Medicaid increased. It is important to note that although the percentage has remained stable, the number of uninsured nonelderly persons has increased by more than 6 million since 1990.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr017.pdf

[jyl]

Originally Posted by RWebb

a search on "medical profit centers" should prove illuminating

some people are greedy, and a medical degree does not always exclude a person from that category

And a lot of the people who benefit from and protect the existing dysfunctional system do not have medical degrees at all. They are the managements of healthcare service, equipment, and drug companies, the managements of healthcare insurance companies, shareholders in those companies, and tens of millions of patients who treat healthcare as "free" because, to them, it basically is.

Most of the doctors I know personally are quite frustrated. They think the healthcare system is screwed up, they are drowning in paperwork, their personal incomes are not going up anything like the revenues and profits of the industry that they support.

[tcar]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

If you have the cash.

Which our government doesn't.

Correct. The government has zero cash.

That's OUR fuch-ing money, not theirs.

[Noah930]

Originally Posted by TechnoViking

Wait till you get the bill from the radiologist

Yeah. My guess: It'll likely be around $150. Tops.

Originally Posted by jyl

Most of the doctors I know personally are quite frustrated. They think the healthcare system is screwed up, they are drowning in paperwork, their personal incomes are not going up anything like the revenues and profits of the industry that they support.

Like I wrote on another thread, every year I get reiumbursed a percentage point or two less than what that same code paid the year before. Medical costs may be going up, but it's not because of physician reimbursement. Heck, I just wish physician reimbursement kept up with the cost of living/inflation.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Noah930

Yeah. My guess: It'll likely be around $150. Tops.
.

yeah, because it it going to Manila or Bangalore...

[RWebb]

I agree with you, jyl. Most diagnostic centers have MDs as owners or investors b/c they have more $$ to put up than the other folks you mention. I do know of one nurse who did this - not sure how.

[Noah930]

Originally Posted by nostatic

yeah, because it it going to Manila or Bangalore...

Actually due to state medical licensing reasons, I don't think it's so simple to outsource radiology readings. The ones I've used in the past went to Australia, as they're awake when we're asleep. Or, rather, our radiologists were asleep. I was still running around the hospital as a surgical resident.

Either way, perhaps I need to invest in more cats.