• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

SilentPanda

Member
Nov 6, 2017
13,637
Earth
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled in favor of the Trump administration's plan to require hospitals and insurers to disclose the actual prices for common tests and procedures.

The White House praised the decision to reject the American Hospital Association's challenge to the plan. The rule mandating that hospitals disclose their privately negotiated charges with commercial health insurers is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2021.

Melinda Hatton, general counsel for the American Hospital Association, said it supports price transparency and making patients' out-of-pocket cost estimates easier to access and understand, but is disappointed with the ruling.

"The AHA continues to believe that the disclosure of privately negotiated rates does nothing to help patients understand what they will actually pay for treatment and will create widespread confusion for them," Hatton said in a statement.

As proposed, the Trump administration rule would require that hospitals:

— Publish in a consumer-friendly manner negotiated rates for the 300 most common services that can be scheduled in advance, such as a knee replacement, a Cesarean-section delivery or an MRI scan. Hospitals would have to disclose what they'd be willing to accept if the patient pays cash. The information would be updated every year.

— Publish all their charges in a format that can be read on the internet by other computer systems. This would allow web developers and consumer groups to come up with tools that patients and their families can use.

Insurers also oppose the plan, saying it could prompt providers that are accepting a bargain price to try to bid up what they charge if they see that others are getting more. A separate regulation that applies to insurers has not been finalized.


apnews.com

White House wins ruling on disclosing health care prices

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday ruled in favor of the Trump administration's plan to require hospitals and insurers to disclose the actual prices for common tests and procedures.
 

Syriel

Banned
Dec 13, 2017
11,088
Trump admin does one thing to help consumers.

Must have slipped through by accident.
 

sprsk

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,450
Why does the AHA oppose this? What am I missing cause this seems like a great thing.

Would assume its because hospital billing is really complicated and would keep people from seeking help because they mistakenly thought a procedure was more expensive than it actually is.
 

ElectricBlanketFire

What year is this?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
31,829
Would assume its because hospital billing is really complicated and would keep people from seeking help because they mistakenly thought a procedure was more expensive than it actually is.

As it stands, people are not seeking help because of the costs regardless. The fucking ambulance ride can wreck someone's life financially.
 

totowhoa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,222
Hell yes. Give me a full menu and publish it online. Transparency can only help drive costs down
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,080
Arkansas, USA
The AHA and AMA love using the insurance industry as a shield to protect them from criticism. We would have had a NHS like system in the 30s if it wasn't for the AMA.
 

JustinBailey

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,596
I cut off my nose to spite my face by not paying an ambulance bill after they charged me $1500 to go 2 blocks and wouldn't disclose how they came up with that price, referring to state mandated rates that didn't exist. I am fine with my act of civil disobedience.
 

FeliciaFelix

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,778
Would assume its because hospital billing is really complicated and would keep people from seeking help because they mistakenly thought a procedure was more expensive than it actually is.

Nah, its because all health professionals would know each other's salaries/rates/what insurers are paying and would know who is being paid and who is being screwed.
 

Jeremy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,639
I cut off my nose to spite my face by not paying an ambulance bill after they charged me $1500 to go 2 blocks and wouldn't disclose how they came up with that price, referring to state mandated rates that didn't exist. I am fine with my act of civil disobedience.

I love this sort of story.

We really should make a thread about this ... I've not paid bills out of spite in the past (e.g. a parking fine in a pay lot where I paid, but they messed up the processing), threats to my credit and threats of lawsuits be damned, out of a sense of injustice in the past.


... anyhow, it's hilarious how the idea of hiding costs from the consumer plays with the idea of fair, open markets for healthcare.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,971
I think this is the law in Massachusetts.

It's a great thing, especially with all these high deductible insurance plans.
 

mikehaggar

Developer at Pixel Arc Studios
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
1,379
Harrisburg, Pa
Our healthcare system is so f*cked. Healthcare service providers and insurance companies go back and forth negotiating the "cost" of everything. And then, the best part, is that if you don't have any insurance the cost of the services you received are somehow much, much less. As much as 50% less in some cases. I have no idea how that works...

More on topic, they don't want to disclose these "costs" as that kind of disrupts the whole "negotiating" process where they attempt to charge insurers as much as possible (while insurers attempt to pay as little as possible).
 

Jeremy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,639
More on topic, they don't want to disclose these "costs" as that kind of disrupts the whole "negotiating" process where they attempt to charge insurers as much as possible (while insurers attempt to pay as little as possible).

Not only that but it keeps people with low/poor/no insurance from shopping around for a better deal.
 

JustinBailey

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,596
I love this sort of story.

We really should make a thread about this ... I've not paid bills out of spite in the past (e.g. a parking fine in a pay lot where I paid, but they messed up the processing), threats to my credit and threats of lawsuits be damned, out of a sense of injustice in the past.


... anyhow, it's hilarious how the idea of hiding costs from the consumer plays with the idea of fair, open markets for healthcare.
Yeah, of course if the bill is big enough it makes sense for them to hire a lawyer and go after you that way. But there's a range where they won't do it, and as far as I am concerned, a privatized ambulance service that overcharges (ambulances used to be free in my city many years ago!!) is not an acceptable path for society.
 

samred

Amico fun conversationalist
Member
Nov 4, 2017
2,585
Seattle, WA
.......but what's the Trump and/or Republican catch here? for example, is this somehow a stepping stone to repealing the ACA? or some other path to an anti-consumer grift? four years of this WH's fuckery doesn't make me eager to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
 

Jeremy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,639
.......but what's the Trump and/or Republican catch here? for example, is this somehow a stepping stone to repealing the ACA? or some other path to an anti-consumer grift? four years of this WH's fuckery doesn't make me eager to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

I think it was intended to be a comparatively low-impact win on health care for Trump... a way for him to look like he was fighting for change without doing that much to actually impact the industry (given that most people have insurance)... it just got tied up in litigation so that its implementation got pushed past campaign season.
 
Nov 18, 2020
1,408
This is fantastic and is a big step in the right direction towards controlling the absurd upcharges that hospitals set for basic services.
 

ChrisD

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,606
Uh.. I'm reading the article and thus far haven't found anything bad. The heck. Very happy with what I've read, even.
 

Jamesways

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,240
Minneapolis
This is fantastic and is a big step in the right direction towards controlling the absurd upcharges that hospitals set for basic services.
Agreed. I work for a larger hospital organization, supporting perioperative services in IT, with a specialty of OR billing.
The whole health care system needs an overhaul.
The markup we use and the game insurance payers play regarding pt charges and reimbursement is ridiculous.
 

Garlador

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
14,131
While he's still (and will forever) be utter garbage...

Between pushing for $2000 stimulus checks and ruling that healthcare prices need to be transparent, I'll give credit where credit is due.
absolutely_right_zoolander.gif
 

Antrax

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,272
This is a good thing. Biden's administration needs to move quick to make sure that the places on the lower end of negotiated prices don't jack them up once they see other places getting more.
 

Dreamwriter

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,461
Why does the AHA oppose this? What am I missing cause this seems like a great thing.
Think of it from the perspective of the businesses the AHA represents, hospitals. They have negotiated different rates with different insurance agencies. Now all those private rates will be made public - good luck negotiating next time with companies that got far worse terms than their competitors. Also this is a whole lot of research and paperwork that has to be done right now, which will take time and money, during a pandemic.

That's why the AHA opposes it.
 

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,116
Good thing that should've always existed in this current capitalist healthcare scam.

It's kinda funny timing, cause Congress just passed a similarish bill in that rona relief last week, but this lawsuit kinda sounds like it has a little more transparency in it and is more immediate (2022 compared to now?)
www.npr.org

Congress Acts To Spare Consumers From Costly Surprise Medical Bills

Congress has passed a long-debated measure to stop health care providers from billing patients for charges not covered by their insurance. Here's how the new protection works.
Starting in 2022, when the law goes into effect, consumers won't get balance bills when they seek emergency care, when they are transported by an air ambulance, or when they receive nonemergency care at an in-network hospital but are unknowingly treated by an out-of-network physician or laboratory.

Patients will pay only the deductibles and copayment amounts that they would under the in-network terms of their insurance plans.

Medical providers won't be allowed to hold patients responsible for the difference between those amounts and the higher fees they might like to charge. Instead, those providers will have to work out acceptable payments with insurers. For the uninsured, for whom everything is out of network, the bill requires the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to create a provider-patient bill dispute resolution process.


So, curious timing. Then again, most probably never knew about the above anyways so it wasn't like he needed to snag attention from what congress did.
 

RoninChaos

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,333
It's so fucked up that something good like this has everybody like "... they wouldn't have done this to help people because the trunk admin isn't interested in helping people. What's the catch?"
 

Plinko

Member
Oct 28, 2017
18,562
He's been calling for this for years, and it's one of the very few things he has proposed that's good for Americans.
 

milkyway

One Winged Slayer
Member
May 17, 2018
3,004
I went in the ER this year which resulted in a diagnostic test and overnight stay (mostly just ruled out ruptured appendix), and received a bill over $10,000 (most of which I was responsible for and am still reeling over how to afford) a month later. Horrible fucking nightmare of a situation that completely blindsided me and I could never get any real transparency on how these charges were actually allowed (I understand how the process works). If I understand this correctly, the negotiated rates/fee schedules for contracted providers will be required to be disclosed, and I can only see that as ultimately having a beneficial effect on patients' medical costs. Imagine one good thing coming out of this awful presidency.