Most people outside of healthcare will have a hard time disrupting anything until they realize the goverment has tilted the rules in favor of status-quo.
Healthcare insurance in the US is heavily subsidized, and no number of revolutionary care delivery models will put you on level terms with the behemoth of US govt insurance subsidies.
Your only hope as a non-provider is to come in with your own a-la-carte insurance that is able to take those subsidies, while you set your moat and innovate in the delivery front.
jmye 3 days ago [-]
You will still lose on the insurance front. If you’re on the exchange, you’ll get absolutely hammered by risk-adjustment. If you’re not, you’ll never be able to sell to anyone. You’ll have to lock up huge amounts of capital, which will grow as you grow, that you can’t invest or use. It will just sit in an account in case you can’t pay claims. You’ll have to accept horrible contracts with provider systems in order to have network adequacy, and none of them will care about coding your patients, or responding when you’re trying to fix your codes.
Health insurance is undisruptable, unless you’re ready to light billions of dollars on fire over several years, or take decades to do it by growing extremely slowly.
The provider side is equally difficult, but I think it’s at least doable. Though you’re still screwed having to deal with CMS or insurance carriers.
inferiorhuman 3 days ago [-]
Health insurance is undisruptable
Medical practices that may charge an annual fee but don't accept insurance — so-called concierge care are a thing. Not accepting insurance means you can operate with a significantly smaller support staff. Patients with a PPO style insurance plan may even have some of the expenses covered.
nradov 3 days ago [-]
Concierge medicine can be a good option for affluent people who can afford it. But it only works with relatively low utilization and won't scale up to address any of the systemic problems in the US healthcare system.
Projectiboga 3 hours ago [-]
My wife's Doc tried that and quickly came crawling back to their patients who refused the $3,000 "concierge" fee here in Murry Hill Manhattan. If that model can't fly here I don't see where it could. Maybe affluent suburbs w fewer competitors?
IG_Semmelweiss 3 days ago [-]
I agree with your statement in general terms. But you can't enter into the industry as a startup, to get stuck in the general crud of status-quo. You are supposed to be disrupting things, right?
The same applies to insurance. You can't take crap contracts that don't work for you, so maybe create a contract of your own based on 1st principles and going back to the definition of insurance.
nradov 3 days ago [-]
That doesn't apply to health insurance. Due to HIPAA / ERISA / EMTALA / ACA and an alphabet soup of other federal and state laws and regulations a startup health insurance company would have very little freedom of action on creating new types of contracts. And this is an area where the laws are actually enforced.
noitpmeder 3 days ago [-]
What's the path forward? Where do we go from here?
dennis_jeeves2 7 hours ago [-]
Will be consider mostly irrational, but I'll mention it:
Learn medicine, and practice outside of of the mainstream clandestinely (a past real world example would be abortion clinics on ships). It needs a group of committed/smart people to pull it off, so not easy. Also it cannot be offered to the public at large for several obvious reasons.
As a general rule one cannot involve 'average' people in such an endeavor. All organization settle down to the lowest common denominator. When it come to large organizations in govt/health/etc. they are prone to increasing corruption and bureaucracy if average people are involved.
blindriver 3 days ago [-]
Dump $1 trillion into Kaiser and push it out to all 50 states. I have it in Bay Area and it’s mostly been great for me. It’s not the best but it also gets 90% of things right.
toast0 3 days ago [-]
Kaiser is the one thing I miss the most having left the Bay Area. It has sort of moved in here, but it took over an existing group and afaik, it's not really integrated like it was down there; there's no Kaiser hospitals here, so hospital care is going to be a mess, and I'm not sure if they have pharmacies either.
But, a lot of people don't like Kaiser. You have to be ok with getting good enough care, and not really be trying to seek 'the best' care. Integration is so nice though. I'm sure Kaiser never puts you in the situation where the Dr says I'm not sure which drug will be covered, let's try A, the pharmacist says A isn't covered, ask your Dr to write a script for B, and your Dr doesn't answer the phone so you have to decide to either pay $250 for A or wait over the weekend to start your kid's treatment.
asadotzler 3 days ago [-]
There was a study comparing Kaiser Permanente with the UK's National Health Service (NHS) that found Kaiser achieved better performance at roughly the same cost.
If we could use tax dollars to make Kaiser national, and scale that large without losing the efficiency and results, we'd be in darned good shape.
Eliminate other private health insurance and if people want above and beyond service they can negotiate directly with providers and pay out of pocket for that.
arethuza 3 days ago [-]
That comparison has a lot of criticisms, for example:
> There was a study comparing Kaiser Permanente with the UK's National Health Service (NHS) that found Kaiser achieved better performance at roughly the same cost.
Linky?
tonyedgecombe 3 days ago [-]
>If we could use tax dollars to make Kaiser national, and scale that large without losing the efficiency and results, we'd be in darned good shape.
It's hard to do that without turning it into the NHS.
swores 3 days ago [-]
As a Brit, that sounds like a positive not a negative, though I appreciate that in the US it might be a political negative.
tonyedgecombe 3 days ago [-]
I don't know, the experience with my mother in law over the last few weeks has left me wondering about that.
I certainly don't want a free for all system like the US has (and I suspect the Tories want) but it isn't great at the moment.
swores 3 days ago [-]
The NHS does have serious problems, but it's a LOT worse now than it was a few decades ago, and the two significant things that have changed are a) funding (per capita and accounting for inflation) is far lower and b) a lot of privatisation has happened.
Politicians - mostly the tories but Blair's government take a lot of blame too - have defined "not privatising the NHS" as only meaning keeping it free at point of use. But in the background, NHS trusts have been forced to sell land and buildings that they used to own and rent it back from the new private owners, and many areas have seen both staff and equipment privatised, from agency staff (where instead of hiring cleaners or nurses or whatever, they instead hire agency staff, where the hourly cost to the NHS is double or more what an employee would cost with most of that increase going to the agency companies not to the workers) to private hospitals (where instead of investing in a new operating theatre, or whatever, they pay to have NHS patients operated on in private hospitals), etc.
The NHS is far from perfect, but the lesson we learn from those imperfections shouldn't be that nationalised healthcare is bad, but that underfunding it and then using that underfunding to justify privatising lots of stuff in the background is not a good way to run a nationalised health service.
The root problem is that many politicians would like to see the NHS fall to pieces so that an American healthcare system can create lots of opportunities for companies to make money, but because the NHS is hugely popular it would be political suicide to make that an official policy, so instead they've taken this approach which not only creates these short term opportunities for companies to come in and profit as mentioned above, but also gradually erodes the it's popularity with the long term goal being that eventually it won't be political suicide to say "Look the NHS is a failed experiment, we need to replace it with American style private companies and healthcare insurance".
mst 3 days ago [-]
The NHS is far from perfect (and was already far from perfect before the Tories spent a decade and a half making it worse) but given you -can- get private health insurance in the UK if you want it, IMO it's best to judge the NHS as 'universal basic healthcare' and accept that at that scale it's always going to suck sometimes but it's still better to have access to such a thing than not.
tonyedgecombe 3 days ago [-]
>given you -can- get private health insurance in the UK if you want it
You can but as soon as something gets serious they dump you back on the NHS.
godisdad 3 days ago [-]
Kaiser in Oakland is without exaggeration the best medical care I’ve ever experienced. Aligning incentives between the care provider and the insurer, vertically integrating care and putting it all on a walkable campus (even with a pharmacy!!) was such an efficient and pleasant process.
I was never healthier. The other Kaisers in Oregon aren’t geographically collocated so there’s less of an effect and they’re far away from me so I don’t use them anymore, sadly
doctorpangloss 3 days ago [-]
Asking doctors about Kaiser will be an eye opening experience for you.
novok 2 days ago [-]
Psychology / Therapy: A horrible model that doesn't work properly. Limited to seeing patients once a month when they need it to be once a week, and constant fighting with the system by clinicians and patients. Overloaded schedules are ultimately unethical.
Doctors: It's like working for any other hospital; it's not bad.
blindriver 3 days ago [-]
I know Kaiser doctors. They mostly like it at least in Norcal. They said Socal Kaiser wasn't as good. My own Kaiser doctor said that Kaiser has been pushing more and more work on her like taking notes, etc, and it's frustrating but as far as I can tell it's a lot better than dealing with insurance companies. She gives me everything I request, like endoscopy, MRI, CT scan, blood tests, prescriptions, etc. The only time I was rejected was when I asked to see if blood sugar monitor could be covered but that was rejected because I'm only pre-diabetic and not diabetic.
rscho 3 days ago [-]
In what way? I'm curious, because I'm a European doc, and things are gravitating towards the US model around here.
3 days ago [-]
toomuchtodo 3 days ago [-]
Congress fixes this or we continue to drag ourselves towards worse failure modes.
whoitwas 3 days ago [-]
Educate humans (not possible because they have to want to learn). Abolish Citizens United. Stop funding insurance. Put the insurance money to healthcare for all.
jmye 1 days ago [-]
Vote and legislate. Doesn’t even have to be federal, since the exchanges are state run. But it’s a highly regulated industry (for good reason, this isn’t a place where deleting laws helps normal people), so you have to fix the regulation. The ACA killing pre-existing coverage denials was a great start, but you have to fix risk adjustment before anything else can happen, as it’s literally just a wealth transfer from new entrants to existing behemoths (I think it was well intentioned, and works well in MA, but is completely broken in the commercial market). Reinsurance fixes to address the fund lockup would also probably help, but they’d be tax-expensive and probably untenable.
But it all starts with voting for people who want to fix it, and not for people who just want to burn it down or maintain the status quo.
AtlasBarfed 3 days ago [-]
So my four pigs analogy, where insurance companies, drug/device companies, doctors/hospitals, and lawyers all feed at the trough, increase costs and point to someone else (although I will admit lawyers are probably the smallest cost component and the most blamed by the other three).
There is a fifth one that imposes costs: our comprehensively unhealthy food, health, and lifestyle in America that capitalism feeds upon with addictive high-margin food and drink, with overworked workers that can barely have time to raise kids (our healthy demographics are due to immigration) much less a healthy lifestyle. The entertainment complex certainly doesn't help either.
Providers: you need comprehensive family care to avoid specialist care being needed, an increase in supply of doctors, decreasing their educational loan burden (which strongly incentivizes specializataion, and a system that involves specialists). I think advanced AI systems can do much more day-to-day tracking and diagnosis/information, but of course that is a personal information nightmare. Actually I don't mean advanced. I think current AI is plenty good enough. Unfortunately only insurance companies will employ these systems or pay for them.
Insurance: Probably need a medicare-for-all option. We were close to this with Obamacare but FUCKING JOE LIEBERMAN killed it. Exhibit A in why the Democrats with full control of government will never get anything done.
Drug/Device companies: reduce patents, I don't know, maybe allow price negotiation (which is just mind blowing in a "free market" economy), reform the FDA to make bringing drugs to market cheaper.
Lawyers: caps caps caps so there isn't costly malpractice insurance. Maybe would also necessitate a federal review board to weed out "bad doctors".
But the biggest is probably governmental direction to actually get people to be able to eat and live active lives. Maybe GLP-1 will help, but the quiet time bomb of increasing obesity in Americans each decade is probably a sneaky large amount of our costs.
Otherwise, on the nihilistic side, keep doing whatever our society is doing which is causing men to kill themselves in huge rates (soma ... uh... I mean opioids were also doing this as well) before they reach their ultra-expensive late stage of life.
Anyway, none of that is happening (except, sadly, the nihilistic solution is the most realistically happening).
Maybe setup huge provider networks across the border in Mexico and Canada served by high speed transit, so large portions of the world get health maintenance in functioning health care systems, and only do hospitalization and emergency care here?
basementcat 3 days ago [-]
> reform the FDA to make bringing drugs to market cheaper.
We recently tried this with some vaccines and now a large segment of the population is now vaccine-hesitant.
Didn't Jon Oliver do a bit on those review boards, pointing out how friendly to fellow doctors they generally are? I think when someone says that we need "a (federal) review board", I think they mean one that works, one with teeth.
franktankbank 3 days ago [-]
> We recently tried this with some vaccines and now a large segment of the population is now vaccine-hesitant.
Forced vaccination was the problem here.
forgetfreeman 3 days ago [-]
> reform the FDA to make bringing drugs to market cheaper.
Uh, definitely not. The drug discovery and trial process is every bit as complex and expensive as it is for a reason. If you're serious about lowering the cost of getting compounds through the pipeline the first thing that should go is private equity's growing chokehold on the provider practices that perform clinical studies.
refurb 3 days ago [-]
Upvotes for highly accurate summary.
The providers have leverage and the ones with the most will screw you over unless you’re big enough to throw some weight around.
I honestly don’t see much change unless the government comes in and sets new rules that actually make sense.
jmye 1 days ago [-]
Yeah, agreed. It has to start from legislation. And that legislation has to also address education - we have to make it easier and cheaper to become a doctor or mid-level, or we have to start trying to import a ton of providers.
helsinkiandrew 3 days ago [-]
> .. they realize the goverment has tilted the rules in favor of status-quo
Or is it that the Healthcare industry has tilted the government into making rules that favor the status-quo?
pdpi 2 days ago [-]
Both are true, but your phrasing shifts responsibility away from the government.
Ultimately, it is the government, not the industry, that sets the rules, and it is the government, not the industry, that is accountable to us.
addicted 1 days ago [-]
Or, it’s the voters.
Even without the argument that ultimately voters are responsible for the government they get in a country with free and fair elections like the U.S., health insurance is a very direct example of voters explicitly opting for a worse option.
The ACA was being written in 2009 and 2010 and the argument was whether it constrained the insurance industry too much or not enough. The very specific policy proposal on the table was the public option which would have allowed the govt to offer an insurance policy that would have effectively set a floor to the quality of policies the healthcare industry could offer and a ceiling on the cost.
And the 2010 election fell right in the middle of the debate and American voters overwhelmingly chose the politicians arguing against the public option and for fewer restraints on the insurance industry.
Beyond that you can just look at every other developed country in the world, and all of them have better healthcare because their voters constantly vote for politicians who offer better healthcare policy, as opposed to the U.S. where voters choose the opposite.
2 days ago [-]
HillRat 2 days ago [-]
I don't know about "disruptive", since they were trying to enter, using conventional tactics, what is in general a mature market with pretty high barriers. Urgent care as a market combines a very small number of very large national chains (Concentra, MedExpress, etc.) with a lot of medium- and small-sized regional chains, about half owned by medical systems and half not. There's even an existing national-level pediatrics chain, PM Pediatric, which has about 100 locations.
It's not an easy market to jump into; you spend a huge amount upfront on site construction (particularly if you're building standalone clinics outside of existing medical buildings, which is not unusual for urgent care), labor cost and complexity is high, and reimbursement cycles are long and painful. Healthcare chains scale like retail, not like software, with all the attendant cash management problems.
It feels like they did offer a superior service with lots of effort put into getting into the community, but I question both their decision to try and build a custom EHR -- yes, EHRs suck, but once you start building your own, you're no longer a medical services company, you're now an EHR company -- and not to pursue a regional-centric expansion strategy aligned with local health systems via contract or JV, instead choosing to build a small number of clinics across the country, which goes against proven successful buildout strategies in healthcare.
It's a shame they've gone under -- again, superior service, obviously a lot of care for their patients -- but "we went under because of cash management problems and inappropriate growth strategy" is a pretty standard story in the healthcare world.
amyfp214 2 days ago [-]
I agree it's not an easy market. Peds ER & pediatrician offices are already a thing catering to children, so I don't see the innovation there. Additionally it's long known pediatrics reimbursement and costs are just way less than adults. This also forks in with the immigration issue(s) in that demographically there are a much higher portion of not not non-documented peoples among children, which can introduce linguistic overhead/costs of time and money (mandatory requirement to speak all patients languages) as well as inability to pay beyond medicaid.
Children are an attractive selling point for a company in the same way as cancer of some altruistic goal. Though here, although elder care exists, to me that seems like the market to disrupt and minimize costs in.
xyst 3 days ago [-]
Very difficult to disrupt American healthcare when health insurance companies determine your rates, direct pay patients often the most vulnerable, and instead of focusing on patient care you have to focus on stupid administrative tasks to deal with different types of health insurance plans/pharmacy benefit managers/vendors.
Thanks to decades of neo-liberalism (the idea of deregulation and "free market" economy). Americans have allowed corporations to form massive entities (in health insurance, UHC + optum bank + optima rx comes to mind) to the point of manipulating the price to their advantage. Then you have to deal with some companies that deny a majority of your claims in hopes that you (the patient and/or healthcare provider) give up (delay, deny, defend policies) or pay out of pocket for treatment.
American healthcare industry is a fucking mess.
snitty 3 days ago [-]
>Americans have allowed corporations to form massive entities (in health insurance, UHC + optum bank + optima rx comes to mind)
This is more an anti-trust problem than deregulation. In the 80s Robert Bork and some others led a charge within the court system to rewrite federal anti-trust law without actually rewriting the laws. The result was that merger/acquisition guidelines were loosened, and the focus was on whether the result would cause the consumer to pay more money. And thanks to the way health care is paid for, it's a little complicated to make that case.
dragonwriter 3 days ago [-]
> This is more an anti-trust problem than deregulation
Loosened antitrust rules are a subset of deregulation, it can’t be any less deregulation than it is a matter of (too loose) antitrust.
tyre 3 days ago [-]
If you want to do the hard work of automating and abstracting the "fucking mess" of the financial layer of American healthcare, we're hiring: https://jobs.lever.co/juniperplatform
Grr. Genuinely tempting, but I didn't wish it had to be in NY, nor hybrid :(
mikebonnell 3 days ago [-]
Huge +1 to that; make remote
an option and expand your talent pool
tyre 3 days ago [-]
It’s definitely a trade-off.
My team at Stripe was scattered all over, during COVID our company was fully remote, and prior to that I worked remotely on a presidential campaign. All of those were great experiences and, in their own ways, necessarily/understandably remote.
Compared to the early days at Gusto and my own startup, though, in-person has very real benefits that (in my opinion) are worth the challenges in hiring. I don’t know that it will always be true and can’t rule out that we’re wrong.
Having internal users and domain experts there in person makes a huge difference. It’s not impossible to do remotely, and maybe the tradeoff doesn’t make sense forever, but it’s worked well thus far.
Aurornis 3 days ago [-]
I’ve felt similarly. In-person has benefits, but across my career it’s been easier to assemble top-tier teams when hiring remote than in-person.
For myself, I’m past the point of moving for companies. If they happen to be nearby I’ll make it work. If they’re not nearby, its either remote or I’m not at all interested anymore.
t-writescode 3 days ago [-]
I, personally, haven't found many situations where continuous in-person-ness is required for hardware-free, software companies, when the actual 1:1 time necessary to get requirements / etc exceed an hour or so at a time and couldn't be as efficiently done over a Zoom call.
There are obviously huge, huge exceptions to this the moment you add hardware to the situation; or you need something you can't replicate well with screen-sharing.
Addendum: but I'm also mildly frustrated because it's a type of work I would be interested in; but I'm on the other coast, so I can't easily apply :)
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
Providers determine your rates. Insurers are companies providers recruit to collect their bills. In the entire US health care system, the providers are the only ones whose cash flows are capped by statute. A provider can charge whatever it wants; over 80% of an insurers cash flows have to go to the provider by statute.
(The health care industry is a mess, I agree!)
duk3luk3 3 days ago [-]
You seem to be implying that the providers set the prices, but isn't it true that insurers can pick and choose which providers they cover, and because of the large amount of patients they insure, they have a huge amount of negotiation power to exert downward pressure on what providers charge?
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
No, that's not true. All the market power is with the providers, which is why they're responsible for something like 9x total health care spend in the US than all health insurers combined.
Medicare is better than private insurers at regulating prices (to wit: when Anthem tried to adopt Medicare's rules for anesthesiology comp, they were excoriated, and the governor of New York proposed a statute preventing them from doing it). But they still wildly overpay for services; in fact, what they pay is not really materially different from what private insurers do (it's less, but not by that much).
inferiorhuman 3 days ago [-]
to wit: when Anthem tried to adopt Medicare's rules for anesthesiology
comp, they were excoriated
For everyone in the back: that's not what happened. BCBS tried to place arbitrary limits on anesthesia payment. Medicare does not do this. Physician complaints with Medicare payments revolve around the hourly rate. Physician complaints with BCBS revolve around arbitrarily setting a hard limit for the amount of time a procedure is allowed to take. One is limiting cost, the other is limiting care.
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
No, that's precisely what they didn't do. Medicare has a schedule of anesthesia compensation rates broken down by procedure; the last time this came up on a thread, the schedule was literally posted. Anthem announced they were using it.
inferiorhuman 3 days ago [-]
Yeah the last time this came up I posted the CMS handbook. If Medicare operated the way you falsely claim there would be an outcry similar to that over BCBS's behavior. BCBS was proposing something entirely different from how Medicare operates.
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
Clearly not, because this is how Medicare operates. In fact, it's the whole premise for why Medicare is meant to bring prices down!
jimmymcgee73 3 days ago [-]
I am an anesthesiologist. This is false. We bill 1 unit every 15 minutes, and then we receive startup units on top. A gall bladder removal is 7 units and often takes an hour. So we would receive 11 units for that hour. If it takes 2 hours we would get 15 units. If it takes 3 hours we would get 19 units.
There is no cap for billing, but realize when an operation goes long it not only means we make less per hour, but there is also usually a good reason for that. Even if there isn’t a good reason, it’s not like we have control over how fast a surgeon operates.
inferiorhuman 3 days ago [-]
Clearly not, because this is how Medicare operates.
Yeah, we've been over this: Medicare does not set arbitrary caps on the length of a procedure. They pay for anesthesia services from the time the patient goes under to the time the patient wakes up.
In fact, it's the whole premise for why Medicare is meant to bring prices down!
In fact, it's not. Limiting care is pretty much the opposite of how Medicare operates and you can see this reflected in the claim denials. For-profit insurance companies deny claims at 2–3x the rate of Medicare because they are incentivized to deny care.
A unique characteristic of anesthesia coding is the reporting of time units.
Payment for anesthesia services increases with time. In addition to reporting
a base unit value for an anesthesia service, the anesthesia practitioner reports
anesthesia time. Anesthesia time is defined as the period during which an
anesthesia practitioner is present with the patient. It starts when the anesthesia
practitioner begins to prepare the patient for anesthesia services in the operating
room or an equivalent area and ends when the anesthesia practitioner is no longer
furnishing anesthesia services to the patient (i.e., when the patient may be placed
Now I made a good faith look through your comment history to see if you'd actually posted anything like that. Barring something I missed I can only assume you're working based on an incorrect assumption of how Medicare pays for the cost of anesthesia.
There is a fixed component per procedure (base unit). This is based on the complexity of a procedure and roughly how long it's expected to take. That is why CMS would track how long a procedure is expected to take. There is a time based factor (time unit), and that is not limited in the way that BCBS was proposing.
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
It's there in black and white on the other thread, down to the individual surgical procedure.
Later
(The comment I replied to was edited extensively after I replied to it.)
duk3luk3 3 days ago [-]
> All the market power is with the providers
How does that work? Do the providers have cartels that set prices?
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
Yes. I don't know if that's the primary factor that gives them their market power; it might be even simpler than that. But yes, they absolutely do.
Unless you're Kaiser, in which case you're the insurer and most of the providers, which is the whole idea behind Kaiser. But every other insurer --- and overwhelmingly, Americans aren't on Kaiser --- is beholden to providers. And of course, Kaiser competes with providers for service providers and vendors.
doctorpangloss 3 days ago [-]
Then why isn’t everyone on Kaiser? Because they’re stupid?
Providers is also kind of vague. You show up at a hospital, does the nurse practitioner who does your intake set the price of your ER service? Who specifically sets the prices?
inferiorhuman 3 days ago [-]
UnitedHealthcare operates in DC and all fifty states and has north of 26 million customers. Kaiser operates in eight states and DC and has around 12 million customers. It's safe to say plenty of folks use Kaiser when it's available.
The downside is that because Kaiser operates as an HMO, any specialists you need to see must be approved by your primary care physician (typically GP, ob-gyn, or uro). They have an abysmal record with mental health, and folks who need chronic non-routine care often struggle to get that care. If all you need are routine checkups, cheap prescriptions, routine immunizations, etc. they're quite competent.
Who specifically sets the prices?
Kaiser is a vertically integrated HMO. Like other HMOs, to get coverage (with a few exceptions) you need to see a provider within the (Kaiser) network. As a vertically integrated HMO the providers in the Kaiser network are all employed directly by Kaiser. So Kaiser sets the its own employee compensation.
It's worth noting that all insurance companies are required to emergency care at any provider as if it were in network. If a Kaiser member were to go to a non-Kaiser ER they would see the same cost as if they'd gone to a Kaiser ER. Whatever Kaiser pays to the out of network hospital/staff is almost certainly negotiated beforehand.
3 days ago [-]
pilotneko 3 days ago [-]
I acknowledge there are issues on the provider side, but it is disingenuous to say that providers set the prices alone. Payers introduce a ton of inefficiencies in billing and also remove money from the system, which negatively impacts care. They implicitly affect care patterns and pricing through denials.
HMOs, for all their problems, have many advantages as well, such as the aligned incentives you allude to.
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
So, I don't disagree that there are inefficiencies with private payers, but I do disagree that they're significant, or the reason US costs are so high, or that insurers deny so many services. You can see this for yourself with Medicare's admin overhead. Admin overhead is, roughly, the ratio of money spent by insurers to money insurers pay to providers. Medicare has "low" admin overhead --- but that's in large part because they serve the most demanding segment of the market. If Medicare covered 30 year olds, their admin overhead would mathematically be significantly higher: same money in, much less money out.
I agree with you about the efficiency of HMOs, but customers hate HMOs.
A useful Google search: "National Health Expenditures by Type of Expenditure and Program: Calendar Year 2022". It's a single spreadsheet, and it's really something. It covers insurers (public and private), providers (hospitals and outpatient), facilities, state health care programs, even dental, all on one sheet. The numbers are hard to get around.
inferiorhuman 3 days ago [-]
inefficiencies with private payers
Inefficiencies like billions of dollars in overbilling annually?
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
Providers overbill. Insurers inappropriately deny coverage. This is pretty basic stuff. What would insurer overbilling even mean? You pay a fixed premium.
Your second link is literally Anthem passing provider fees (in violation of their contract, sure!) through to customers. The bills were from providers.
Fuck if I know what's going on between Medicare and UHC. It's a mess. Medicare Advantage is a hybrid Medicare/private system; once again, whatever fees were being passed to Medicare, they were coming from providers. Insurers can certainly inappropriately deny coverage, but they don't generally make de novo charges up. Charges come from providers.
Upcoding scandals, which literally appear to be what the UnitedHealth link you provided was about, were exactly what Anthem was trying to control for with its new announcement.
nradov 3 days ago [-]
Medicare Advantage is a capitated program. The provider fees aren't being passed through to Medicare.
Healthcare is one of the most regulated industries in the United States.
Want to be a doctor? You've got the aptitude, the knowledge, the mindset, and the will, but a government-guaranteed cartel of medical schools won't let you in, so too damn bad. Learn to code.
Want to open a clinic? You really only need about a half-million in hardware to operate at the level of a 1980s hospital, but regulatory compliance will push your annual opex into the millions as a baseline, not to mention having to deal with the nightmare that is health insurance.
Those "massive entities" you mentioned are entirely protected from competition by force of law.
You know why healthcare used to be cheap? Nobody had insurance.
Anyone that had the aptitude and wanted to be a doctor basically could.
You went to the hospital, paid your bill, and that was that.
I'm not saying "zero regulation, caveat emptor!", but over the past hundred years, the precise opposite of "deregulation" has happened across every aspect of American life.
dennis_jeeves2 7 hours ago [-]
>Want to be a doctor? You've got the aptitude, the knowledge, the mindset, and the will, but a government-guaranteed cartel of medical schools won't let you in, so too damn bad. Learn to code.
Will be consider mostly stupid/irrational, but I'll mention it:
Learn medicine, and practice outside of of the mainstream clandestinely (a past real world example would be abortion clinics on ships). It needs a group of committed/smart people to pull it off, so not easy. Also it cannot be offered to the public at large for several obvious reasons.
As a general rule one cannot involve 'average' people in such an endeavor. All organization settle down to the lowest common denominator. When it come to large organizations in govt/health/etc. they are prone to increasing corruption and bureaucracy if average people are involved.
vasco 3 days ago [-]
How come it's cheaper in places where everyone has insurance?
speakfreely 3 days ago [-]
Because there's a single payor that tells providers how much things are going to cost. The short answer for why US healthcare is so expensive is that Americans are economically disconnected from the price of the healthcare they are consuming. There is absolutely no free market system happening there because almost all the costs are hidden behind insurance schemes.
robertlagrant 3 days ago [-]
> How come it's cheaper in places where everyone has insurance?
Those places don't have a hellish Frankenstein's monster combination of public and private and a load of regulations at the federal and state levels all adding up to high costs that have to be passed on to the consumer, but also weird niches of market inefficiencies that can be exploited by anyone who's managed to luck or judge their way into an advantageous position.
They also don't fund most of the world's healthcare advancements, which the US does.
They also cut off care at a certain point, whereas in the US you not only have access to most of the cutting edge treatments in the world that just aren't available on single payer systems, as they don't provide enough value, you also can find someone to pay to do it. You can bankrupt yourself on cutting edge treatments if you like.
I don't know what the answer is, other than "try again" and have a nice multi-insurer model, which I think one of the Scandies has, that just competes on efficiency and has its payouts and insurables defined by government, or maybe a single payer model. Or make healthcare a state-level problem and have each state solve it differently without federal overhead.
sgerenser 2 days ago [-]
Providers also make a lot more money in the U.S. than in other countries. This encompasses much more than just doctors, but try running on a platform that’s seen as “cutting doctor salaries” and see how far it gets you.
estebarb 3 days ago [-]
The problem is private insurance companies + private hospitals. They shouldn't exist.
Healthcare is an inelastic service: people will pay everything to get it. So private hospitals in a free market are pushed to bill their services as higher as possible. Actually, their prices would go to infinity, if not limited by people total savings and earnings.
So, here the insurance companies make the problem worse: they give people access to "infinite" credit. So you can pay for those exorbitant prices. But with insurance you just increased the pool of money people can use for health, so private hospitals can and will increase their pricing. Add more free market competition and you get the disaster of the USA healthcare system.
Because of that reason, basic economics, is that for profit Healthcare cannot work long term. The only way to make it work is making it a public service. But in USA politicians will cry that is comunism, so they won't do it.
And the USA Healthcare problem doesn't limit itself to USA. As americans are unable to pay for healthcare there, they started doing medical tourism, which is making health prices in other countries more expensive too.
donw 2 days ago [-]
Japan has private insurance companies and private hospitals, many of them, and does just fine.
rqtwteye 3 days ago [-]
Because everybody besides the US regulates prices.
skissane 3 days ago [-]
> Healthcare is one of the most regulated industries in the United States.
And yet other countries have even more regulation, and manage to deliver cheaper and more equitable healthcare overall, with better public health outcomes when measured at the national level
For example: in Australia, the federal government is a near-monopsony purchaser of prescription drugs, so it has enormous negotiating power with the pharmaceutical companies. By contrast, in the US, the federal government’s role in purchasing drugs is much smaller: the end result is higher drug prices, although the downside of Australia’s model is it can delay availability of new drugs. (Those with unlimited ability to pay can still purchase drugs privately at whatever cost the manufacturer will sell them-you can even get bureaucrat approval to import unapproved drugs for personal use if you can find a senior clinician willing to assist you in it.)
ipaddr 3 days ago [-]
Most Americans don't want equitable healthcare they want the best they can afford and they want the newest treatments available.
The waiting for the patent to expire and buying in bulk keep down the costs down works. The US couldn't use the generic strategy because the drug companies get funded and create the new drugs this way. Cutting off the funding would mean no new drugs to copy so no new generics. Australia would have to start funding research.
donavanm 3 days ago [-]
As sibling mentioned thats not the model. From what Ive seen australia lags US access on the order of 6months to a few years for most things. Effectively theres an additional review period where TGA reviews foreign research and approval before (generally) allowing and entering it to the ARTG and PBS with the relevant prescribing advice. Once its on the MBS/PBS the patient gets access through their prescriber and/or chemist.
The PBS listed medications are essentially price capped copays at the point of sale, with the bulk of the cost covered directly by the government (who negotiates prices with the manufacturer, and fronts the pharmacist distribution costs). Its the same pfizer etc patent protected medication, unless theres a generic version which chemist & prescriber can vend with patient consent.
skissane 3 days ago [-]
> The waiting for the patent to expire
That's not what the Australian government does.
Even for prescription drugs still under patent, the federal government negotiating on behalf of the whole country as a monopsony purchaser can demand (and get) much bigger discounts. (A monopoly is when a market effectively has only one seller, a monopsony is when a market effectively has only one buyer.)
Whereas, in the US, each insurer negotiates separately, so all but the very largest have weaker bargaining power than the Australian government has, simply because they don't represent as many insureds. The US has over 1000 health insurers, only the top two or three (such as UnitedHealth Group) have more insureds than the Australian government has (26 million).
Plus, even though a handful of very large US insurers such as UnitedHealth have more insureds than the Australian government does, the fact that the Australian government is a sovereign state and not just the purchaser but also the regulator and legislator gives it additional negotiating clout that such private insurers lack. Also, if UnitedHealth refuses to reach a deal with the drug manufacturer, they risk losing insurance customers to other insurers who are willing to do so; Australians can't realistically switch public health insurers (moving overseas is the only real way; private health insurance usually has very modest prescription drug benefits)
> Australia would have to start funding research.
Australia actually does have significant medical research funding. Unfortunately it seems to be a struggle to find good data on exactly how much (in easily comparable terms, such as %GDP) – the WHO's statistics [0] on this topic are missing both the US and Australia for whatever reason. But even in the absence of hard figures, I'd totally believe the US spends at least double (on a % GDP basis). But I think that's part of a broader economic problem with Australian underspending on R&D (both public and private) which goes beyond just health.
The other problem I know, is Australia has largely lost its ability to productise pharmaceutical innovations (outside of certain niche areas), which means even when some novel drug is discovered in Australia, they need to turn to to a US or European company to turn it into a product. But that's more a consequence of poor industrial policy (most of Australia's pharmaceutical manufacturing sector moved overseas, and what's left is mostly lower-end stuff like vitamins and herbal supplements, with rare exceptions such as CSL) than anything to do with drug pricing.
> But I think that's part of a broader economic problem with Australian underspending on R&D (both public and private) which goes beyond just health.
That doesn't matter to this point. What matters is the US pays for the R&D that Australia gets to benefit from. You can stop R&D and drive down prices, as long as you're comfortable making world drug discovery grind to a halt.
tomrod 3 days ago [-]
100%. Deregulation hasn't happened. Regulatory capture and loss of effective regulation have both happened.
nradov 3 days ago [-]
You're confusing cause and effect. Health care used to be cheap because it couldn't really do much beyond treating some minor injuries and infections. Until about a century ago, what we had was barely a step above witch doctors. Health insurance or lack thereof only started to become a major issue when care delivery started to become more effective and expensive.
skissane 3 days ago [-]
> Until about a century ago, what we had was barely a step above witch doctors.
By the late 19th century, we already had general anaesthesia (developed starting in the 1840s), antiseptics (we’ve had them for centuries but their use became much more common in the late 19th century as the germ theory received broad acceptance), smallpox vaccine (very late 18th century development), a number of drugs (some known since antiquity others newly discovered), etc. Yes doctors were a lot more limited in what they could do back then, but even within those limits they saved people’s lives all the time. If your arm had gangrene, they could amputate it under general anaesthesia, antiseptics to try to prevent infection, and provide post-operative pain relief - which could literally save your life. Women with breast cancer received mastectomies (known about since antiquity but became much more common in 19th century, especially as general anaesthesia made the surgery more tolerable)-due to the lack of chemotherapy or immunotherapy, that wouldn’t do much for those with more advanced cancer, but if the cancer was sufficiently localised could be curative and lifesaving
FireBeyond 3 days ago [-]
You also forgot that you'll have to apply for a Certificate of Need, which (while simplifying) allows other clinics and hospitals in the area to say they think you should be allowed to, and it won't cause them to have too few patients to see...
Aurornis 3 days ago [-]
> Very difficult to disrupt American healthcare when health insurance companies determine your rates,
This isn’t unique to America. In countries with government healthcare, the government determines your rates. Typically government rates are lower than private insurance rates in the US, too.
For as much as Americans like to complain about insurance companies, we actually get a lot more care and pay higher rates to providers than other countries. There’s a reason doctor pay in the United States is so much higher, among other things.
llamaimperative 3 days ago [-]
What on earth
We get a lot more care, pay higher rates, and have worse outcomes.
That last bit is why people are pissed.
missedthecue 3 days ago [-]
I don't think it's settled fact that the US has worse health outcomes. In fact, most data I see points to the opposite. Some people point out very lazy metrics like life expectancy while ignoring that 72% of Americans are overweight or obese according to the CDC. Rearrange healthcare/government insurance models all you want; it can't fix that.
thrance 3 days ago [-]
Life expectancy is still lower in the US than in western Europe.
robertlagrant 3 days ago [-]
But engage with the point OP's making. That is despite spending far more on healthcare, so maybe the problem isn't the healthcare?
Life expectancy in general in the US could also be due to the amount of gun violence, as well. Nothing to do with the quality of healthcare.
thrance 3 days ago [-]
In western Europe, governments have a vested interest in the good health of their citizens, because a healthy citizen costs less to the healthcare system.
The US government does not care that much about obesity, gun violence and all that jazz because it is not the one paying for the damages it does.
All these factors contribute to the comparatively poorer life expectancy of Americans, which is, I agree, only a surface metric.
llamaimperative 3 days ago [-]
The government does end up paying for this via Medicare and Medicaid but doesn’t have good levers to solve it directly.
The more important dynamic you’re pointing to is that private insurers don’t care because our insurance is tied to our employers and therefore is expected (by insurers) to churn every 4 years or so.
It literally makes zero sense for a private insurer to invest in an American’s healthcare results more than 3 or so years down the road.
Surprise surprise, we have best-in-class care for emergencies and complex acute cases, and absolutely atrocious management of early disease and lifestyle problems (which is when it’s most cost-effective to solve health problems).
llamaimperative 3 days ago [-]
Managing chronic disease burden is a component of healthcare
The fact that Americans intuit that it’s not is a worrying sign of just how broken our system is
robertlagrant 3 days ago [-]
> Americans intuit that it’s not
Any evidence for this?
llamaimperative 3 days ago [-]
GP’s comment? It’s predicated on separating “high chronic disease burden” from “poor healthcare system performance.”
I don’t think this is a broadly held belief, I think it’s the “eeehhrm actually…” contrarian belief that’s trying to discredit the consensus view that our healthcare system gets very poor results for the money. So it shows up in places like this exact HN thread.
robertlagrant 3 days ago [-]
Sounds as though you're now not saying that Americans as a group think that. That's good.
llamaimperative 3 days ago [-]
Uhhhhh obviously managing chronic disease burden is a core feature of a functional healthcare system.
One of the strongest levers we have to improve the “inputs” you’re describing is a better primary care system. America’s has been absolutely gutted over the last 20 years by interactions of various economic and regulatory dynamics including (notably) the anti-competitive vertical integration of pay-viders and pay-vider+PBMs like UnitedHealth Group.
It is absolutely not true there aren’t system-level changes we can make in healthcare and insurance to help address this.
missedthecue 2 days ago [-]
Yes managing chronic disease is good and important but there is no healthcare system that is so good it can outrun an obese population. The healthy population will always do better than infinity spending and care on a sick one.
llamaimperative 17 hours ago [-]
It seems like you’re either ignorant of some basic facts about healthcare or are willfully missing the point (true to the username I guess) so I’ll be more explicit:
Having access to doctors helps to manage disease.
Obesity is a disease.
In particular, having access to PCPs helps to manage obesity.
Our healthcare system yields poor access to healthcare.
In particular, it yields poor access to PCPs.
Ergo the obese population is in part an output of and not an external input into the design of our healthcare system.
Ergo changes to the healthcare system absolutely can — and in fact should have as a key goal to — yield changes to levels of obesity.
> “ Rearrange healthcare/government insurance models all you want; it can't fix that.”
This claim is false. The mental model of an obese population being exclusively an input into our healthcare system does not track with what we know about the relationship between healthcare and obesity.
devonkim 3 days ago [-]
I think we should add that the outcomes are worse at _all_ socioeconomic levels. The rich get screwed over as well in this system as well. It's unfortunate that so many of them have better overall outcomes and/or myopic experiences that many are emotionally invested in being _able_ to pay exorbitant amounts for more personalized care - regardless of the societal consequences - as an interpretation of "freedom."
But hey, it's not like the US is a democracy exactly given that public opinion generally doesn't translate into policy changes anymore.
jackcosgrove 3 days ago [-]
I have heard conflicting accounts of inefficiencies in the US healthcare system.
One account is that the US has too many medical facilities in urban areas. In other words, there might be five hospitals each with its own radiology equipment. That equipment is idle some of the time, so you could close some of the imaging departments and leave just one or two for the metro area. That would obviously inconvenience some people, but the gist of the criticism is that the US duplicates medical capacity for the sake of convenience.
The other criticism is that there are too few clinics and such. That's why there was a big push to open health clinics in pharmacies and urgent care locations recently.
Now I know these aren't mutually exclusive; you can have too few clinics and too many hospitals. But I would like to know if anyone is more informed than I am what validity there is to each criticism.
I'm curious what the truth is regarding the number and character of brick-and-mortar healthcare facilities in the US: too many? too few? Because it looks like this company was opening physical clinics.
ketzu 3 days ago [-]
> One account is that the US has too many medical facilities in urban areas. In other words, there might be five hospitals each with its own radiology equipment. That equipment is idle some of the time, so you could close some of the imaging departments and leave just one or two for the metro area. That would obviously inconvenience some people, but the gist of the criticism is that the US duplicates medical capacity for the sake of convenience.
> The other criticism is that there are too few clinics and such. That's why there was a big push to open health clinics in pharmacies and urgent care locations recently.
Funny enough, germany has the exact same two problems.
* Too many small urban hospitals do too many things, but have no speciality, leading to high cost, underutilization and higher risk procedures.
* Too few specialist doctors for checkups leading to long waiting times.
inferiorhuman 3 days ago [-]
I'm curious what the truth is regarding the number and character
of brick-and-mortar healthcare facilities in the US: too many?
too few? Because it looks like this company was opening physical
clinics.
Services are unevenly distributed and I wouldn't say there's too many providers in urban areas. Rural areas are underserved though (off the top of my head I can think of a movie and a TV series whose premise is rooted in lack of rural care).
Even within urban areas care is uneven. Hospitals are concentrated in the more wealthy parts of San Francisco and the poorer (e.g. southeastern) parts see sparse coverage. One of the big points of contention when Sutter Health bought out St Luke's hospital in SF was that Sutter wanted to transition from primary care to more profitable specialties. This would've left the neighborhood bereft of primary care.
In more rural areas you'll find that funding is a political football. As that funding wanes so does the level of care. On top of that the post-Roe v Wade environment encourages some folks to migrate towards urban areas in more "permissive" states.
In terms of too much urban coverage. When I needed an ultrasound through UCSF I had to book it out months in advance. It's not clear to me that there is a ton of duplication there — more the point if I'd looked elsewhere I would've had to figure out what was/wasn't in network with my insurance provider. Last I looked Kaiser has a grand total of eight urgent care clinics in the Bay Area. There are nine counties in the Bay Area. That's efficient from a business standpoint but leaves plenty of customers out in the cold as Kaiser covers out-of-network services in very limited circumstances. Likewise, try to find a GP that accepts insurance and is taking new patience. When I checked eons ago UCSF had a nearly year long wait.
jackcosgrove 3 days ago [-]
Just to be clear the "too much coverage" argument is about physical facilities and equipment, not personnel. I think everyone is in agreement that there is a shortage of medical staff.
As far as convenience vs efficiency, the argument was that to achieve the efficiencies found in other countries, which often have longer wait times for services than the US, you do have to sacrifice convenience. The US, by treating healthcare like a consumer good rather than a rationed utility, has built out excess capacity for the sake of convenience. This is, according to the argument, part of the reason we spend more on healthcare than peers. (Healthcare must always be rationed; the US does so on price rather than wait times.)
inferiorhuman 3 days ago [-]
It's not clear to me that wait times for e.g. imaging are due to insufficient staff. UC had two locations (for a city of 800,000) where I could've gotten an ultrasound. Getting waitlisted trying to find a GP isn't a staffing issue either. My solution was to patronize a medical practice that didn't accept insurance. I was able to make a same day appointment as a new patient. The lack of urgent care within the Kaiser network out here isn't a staffing issue. Kaiser simply hasn't built out clinics.
The lack of rural providers is largely a staffing issue, but once the staff go whole departments (e.g. obstetrics) get shuttered and it then becomes a larger problem than merely finding physicians.
Having been through the meat grinder a few times I don't think there's as much "convenience" as proponents of for-profit health care would like everyone to believe. Attributing the uneven distribution of care to convenience misses the mark. Profit incentivizes specialties that can charge higher prices and disincentives primary care. That's not convenience, it's profit. Again. St. Luke's.
tzs 2 days ago [-]
> On top of that the post-Roe v Wade environment encourages some folks to migrate towards urban areas in more "permissive" states.
Crucially, among those who leave are not just patients. There are also doctors leaving.
Spooky23 3 days ago [-]
Too much generally refers specifically to inpatient beds.
dv_dt 3 days ago [-]
If the radiology equipment was fully filled that would basically guarantee longer ER wait times
NBJack 3 days ago [-]
> That would obviously inconvenience some people, but the gist of the criticism is that the US duplicates medical capacity for the sake of convenience.
Or outright kill them due to a delay in a critical finding. This is more than a convenience factor, and moving patients between facilities is non-trivial.
maxerickson 2 days ago [-]
The prices charged for imaging have basically no relation to the equipment cost.
It's likely the other way around from what you are saying, with limits to market entry enabling the existing facilities to charge more than the efficient price for the service.
Suppafly 3 days ago [-]
>That would obviously inconvenience some people, but the gist of the criticism is that the US duplicates medical capacity for the sake of convenience.
I work for a hospital chain that has done similar things. A lot of the failing hospitals in little towns across the US is because of this, and the consolidation that's happening is to remove similar inefficiencies. People that live in these little towns with failing hospitals see any move towards correcting these inefficiencies as evidence that our medical system is failing and use it to vote for right wing politicians who make empty promises.
pixl97 3 days ago [-]
I mean because commonly you shift the problem back to the user's insurance....
If you have 2 hospitals and one takes your insurance and the other doesn't you still get service. If you consolidate to one and they don't take your insurance you may have to drive hours to get medical service.
A huge failure of the system is how health insurance works.
drannex 3 days ago [-]
This is what happens when everything has to be privatized, ie, the general problem with capitalism, that the duplication of resources is far more than the system can support.
godisdad 3 days ago [-]
OP here.
I visited their clinics for my daughter several times when she was a toddler for ear aches and other ailments— I found the experience refreshing: instant online booking, no BS registration and online communication with staff was seamless. Very sad to see them go so abruptly.
Up until this morning when I was told they were gone, I had no idea they were YC or otherwise VC funded. Just came here to pour one out for a genuinely helpful and pleasant medical company.
hedora 3 days ago [-]
We had basically the same experience with Kaiser Permanente in the SF Bay Area.
Currently, there’s a doctor shortage problem (supposedly, they can’t hire, or there aren’t enough positions, depending on who you ask), which has caused issues with the quality of care (according to the doctors that went on strike over this, and personal experience).
It’s unclear what the root cause or solution is.
Anyway, you can get the experience you described, and it’s great until you hit an understaffed corner case health problem.
dariusmonsef 2 days ago [-]
Appreciate the pour. Glad you got great care for your daughter.
dr_ 3 days ago [-]
Sad to see a care organization like this shut down.
But curious to understand what exactly they were disrupting?
From the outset, looks like a pediatric clinic that accepts insurance (and has a cash pay option) - but this is how most pediatric clinics/urgent care that are not venture backed operate. There doesn’t seem to be a disruption in their revenue model (like a one medical style subscription service), and vbc doesn’t apply much to pediatric care.
Not criticisms, just trying to understand what the goal was.
dariusmonsef 2 days ago [-]
There are 25 million ER visits a year for kids where the vast majority of those visits are not life-threatening and don’t require that level of care. An urgent care is 1/10 the cost of an ER and can create a better environment for the kid and family… so better care for 1/10th the cost.
nextworddev 3 days ago [-]
Zombie startups closing shop around year end for tax purposes I guess
yieldcrv 3 days ago [-]
VC tax loss harvesting? They need proof to mark down their investment to zero?
Most taxpayers have to realize the loss to take a tax deduction against their gains, but some tax elections allow you to do the same without finding a buyer for the worthless shares, which narrows down the incentives
Mark to Market election
as well as non-profits
some non-profit investors have stricter scrutiny as their charitable distribution requirement is based on net assets. so there is an incentive to arbitrarily mark malperforming investments down to lower values, but being able to get the business to announce their failure supports it better
Just thinking out loud
readthenotes1 3 days ago [-]
Given the highly escalating price of medical care, it's astounding that a provider that isn't required by federal law to provide no-cost indigent care can go bankrupt.
[1] makes it sound like they were assuming a never-ending stream of venture funding and didn't make a sustainable business. It'd be interesting to see where the money went.
Was very hard to navigate COVID where the business was whiplashed in both directions for a couple years. Money went to opening clinics and staff… in hindsight there were smarter ways to grow the business.
mkmk 3 days ago [-]
Patient acquisition costs, perhaps?
gerdesj 3 days ago [-]
"federal law to provide no-cost indigent care"
Could you explain "indigent" here, please. It looks like a typo.
btilly 3 days ago [-]
Any homeless person can walk into an ER and get care. What will happen to the bills?
Effectively it is no cost care for those who are sufficiently poor.
gerdesj 3 days ago [-]
Cool - that sounds a bit like our NHS.
You also said "What will happen to the bills?" - what does that mean?
Cheers
Jon
nradov 3 days ago [-]
Some of the bills are just written off as bad debt. Essentially thrown away. But in many cases the hospital back office will work to get indigent patients enrolled in Medicaid and then send the bills to the state government.
atomicnumber3 3 days ago [-]
Socialized medicine with extra steps and 500 middlemen all skimming off the top
dragonwriter 3 days ago [-]
It's someone looking at the EMTALA requirement for emergency departments to provide stabilization without regard to ability to pay without also realizing that the US has public health insurance for the medically indigent.
pge 3 days ago [-]
There are still a lot of low-income patients that are not covered by medicaid
BugsJustFindMe 3 days ago [-]
They mean providing care to poor people.
anovikov 3 days ago [-]
Real way to fix healthcare: facilities based on repurposed container ships offshore near cities with lots of flights into them, to be outside of US regulations, staffed by physicians shuffled from Eastern Europe. Will offer more than an order of magnitude price advantage and will quickly squeeze the existing systems making it irrelevant until what's left of it is forced to change.
thrance 3 days ago [-]
This seems extremely carbon intensive and would starve eastern Europe of the medical staff it probably needs. Also why would they charge an order of magnitude less when a 3% discount would be enough to attract patients? And how could a brain surgeon do his thing on a boat? This just seems comically bad.
the_sleaze_ 3 days ago [-]
only marginally different from just opening a luxury clinic in ie. Mexico with the exact same staff, which of course exists.
My mom refuses to leave the US healthcare system despite the costs because
1. She pays for insurance, not surgery (in her mind)
2. regardless of the keening US healthcare system is the best in the world
kbelder 3 days ago [-]
That is interesting, although improbable.
Yeul 3 days ago [-]
Well my dentist is from Ukraine. I hope she doesn't go back.
jawns 3 days ago [-]
Don't get the wrong idea about this announcement.
The problem is not that pediatric urgent care is not a viable business.
The problem is that it's not a great VC-funded business.
VC investors are hoping for huge growth and eventually earning back multiples of their investment.
That's going to be really hard to do in this segment of the health-care market.
We've got a wonderful pediatric urgent-care place in our area, backed by the best children's hospital in our metro region, and it seems to be doing great. But does that mean it could ever grow at the rate needed to satisfy VC investors? Probably not.
dgfitz 3 days ago [-]
Geriatric care will be the gold rush of the 2040s. If I knew a solid way to invest in that, I would.
stevenwoo 3 days ago [-]
Private equity has already beat you there and senior housing in the USA and there are already REITs that specialize in nursing homes.
sam0x17 3 days ago [-]
This mindset (that it will be a goldrush) is why we can't have nice things. Can't trust capitalism to do this kind of stuff in a non-exploitative way
sieabahlpark 3 days ago [-]
[dead]
dgfitz 3 days ago [-]
We don’t have nice things because congress sucks. Keep
Blaming capitalism, that wall has lots of screams to bear yet.
fl0id 3 days ago [-]
Two things can be true. Especially if they are at least partially connected.
sam0x17 2 days ago [-]
Right, Congress needs to place more limits on capitalism, for the aforementioned reason (capitalism isn't good at common good stuff).
imperialdrive 3 days ago [-]
2040's? It is happening, now.
12345hn6789 3 days ago [-]
This is already happening. I know a guy who literally cannot keep up with the demand for hearing aids. He has multiple locations already.
bhouston 3 days ago [-]
In Canada it has been the growth of old folks homes. I expect there will be a glut of them in 39 years or so. The companies behind them have likely made a killing.
kennyloginz 3 days ago [-]
The Gaetz family probably owns this sector.
vasco 3 days ago [-]
Buy a house, employ 6 nurses?
xyst 3 days ago [-]
I never used this service but based on their site. It's aimed at pediatric care?
With the decline in birth rates in the US, didn't seem like a sustainable model from the get go.
lazyasciiart 3 days ago [-]
Decline in birth rates is generally at least matched by an increase in per-child spending.
Rendered at 05:43:44 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/brave-care
https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2021/10/07/brave-c... | https://archive.today/Qd8fQ
https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/09/yc-backed-brave-care-raise...
Healthcare insurance in the US is heavily subsidized, and no number of revolutionary care delivery models will put you on level terms with the behemoth of US govt insurance subsidies.
Your only hope as a non-provider is to come in with your own a-la-carte insurance that is able to take those subsidies, while you set your moat and innovate in the delivery front.
Health insurance is undisruptable, unless you’re ready to light billions of dollars on fire over several years, or take decades to do it by growing extremely slowly.
The provider side is equally difficult, but I think it’s at least doable. Though you’re still screwed having to deal with CMS or insurance carriers.
The same applies to insurance. You can't take crap contracts that don't work for you, so maybe create a contract of your own based on 1st principles and going back to the definition of insurance.
Learn medicine, and practice outside of of the mainstream clandestinely (a past real world example would be abortion clinics on ships). It needs a group of committed/smart people to pull it off, so not easy. Also it cannot be offered to the public at large for several obvious reasons.
As a general rule one cannot involve 'average' people in such an endeavor. All organization settle down to the lowest common denominator. When it come to large organizations in govt/health/etc. they are prone to increasing corruption and bureaucracy if average people are involved.
But, a lot of people don't like Kaiser. You have to be ok with getting good enough care, and not really be trying to seek 'the best' care. Integration is so nice though. I'm sure Kaiser never puts you in the situation where the Dr says I'm not sure which drug will be covered, let's try A, the pharmacist says A isn't covered, ask your Dr to write a script for B, and your Dr doesn't answer the phone so you have to decide to either pay $250 for A or wait over the weekend to start your kid's treatment.
If we could use tax dollars to make Kaiser national, and scale that large without losing the efficiency and results, we'd be in darned good shape.
Eliminate other private health insurance and if people want above and beyond service they can negotiate directly with providers and pay out of pocket for that.
https://bjgp.org/content/54/503/415
Linky?
It's hard to do that without turning it into the NHS.
I certainly don't want a free for all system like the US has (and I suspect the Tories want) but it isn't great at the moment.
Politicians - mostly the tories but Blair's government take a lot of blame too - have defined "not privatising the NHS" as only meaning keeping it free at point of use. But in the background, NHS trusts have been forced to sell land and buildings that they used to own and rent it back from the new private owners, and many areas have seen both staff and equipment privatised, from agency staff (where instead of hiring cleaners or nurses or whatever, they instead hire agency staff, where the hourly cost to the NHS is double or more what an employee would cost with most of that increase going to the agency companies not to the workers) to private hospitals (where instead of investing in a new operating theatre, or whatever, they pay to have NHS patients operated on in private hospitals), etc.
The NHS is far from perfect, but the lesson we learn from those imperfections shouldn't be that nationalised healthcare is bad, but that underfunding it and then using that underfunding to justify privatising lots of stuff in the background is not a good way to run a nationalised health service.
The root problem is that many politicians would like to see the NHS fall to pieces so that an American healthcare system can create lots of opportunities for companies to make money, but because the NHS is hugely popular it would be political suicide to make that an official policy, so instead they've taken this approach which not only creates these short term opportunities for companies to come in and profit as mentioned above, but also gradually erodes the it's popularity with the long term goal being that eventually it won't be political suicide to say "Look the NHS is a failed experiment, we need to replace it with American style private companies and healthcare insurance".
You can but as soon as something gets serious they dump you back on the NHS.
I was never healthier. The other Kaisers in Oregon aren’t geographically collocated so there’s less of an effect and they’re far away from me so I don’t use them anymore, sadly
Doctors: It's like working for any other hospital; it's not bad.
But it all starts with voting for people who want to fix it, and not for people who just want to burn it down or maintain the status quo.
There is a fifth one that imposes costs: our comprehensively unhealthy food, health, and lifestyle in America that capitalism feeds upon with addictive high-margin food and drink, with overworked workers that can barely have time to raise kids (our healthy demographics are due to immigration) much less a healthy lifestyle. The entertainment complex certainly doesn't help either.
Providers: you need comprehensive family care to avoid specialist care being needed, an increase in supply of doctors, decreasing their educational loan burden (which strongly incentivizes specializataion, and a system that involves specialists). I think advanced AI systems can do much more day-to-day tracking and diagnosis/information, but of course that is a personal information nightmare. Actually I don't mean advanced. I think current AI is plenty good enough. Unfortunately only insurance companies will employ these systems or pay for them.
Insurance: Probably need a medicare-for-all option. We were close to this with Obamacare but FUCKING JOE LIEBERMAN killed it. Exhibit A in why the Democrats with full control of government will never get anything done.
Drug/Device companies: reduce patents, I don't know, maybe allow price negotiation (which is just mind blowing in a "free market" economy), reform the FDA to make bringing drugs to market cheaper.
Lawyers: caps caps caps so there isn't costly malpractice insurance. Maybe would also necessitate a federal review board to weed out "bad doctors".
But the biggest is probably governmental direction to actually get people to be able to eat and live active lives. Maybe GLP-1 will help, but the quiet time bomb of increasing obesity in Americans each decade is probably a sneaky large amount of our costs.
Otherwise, on the nihilistic side, keep doing whatever our society is doing which is causing men to kill themselves in huge rates (soma ... uh... I mean opioids were also doing this as well) before they reach their ultra-expensive late stage of life.
Anyway, none of that is happening (except, sadly, the nihilistic solution is the most realistically happening).
Maybe setup huge provider networks across the border in Mexico and Canada served by high speed transit, so large portions of the world get health maintenance in functioning health care systems, and only do hospitalization and emergency care here?
We recently tried this with some vaccines and now a large segment of the population is now vaccine-hesitant.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10257562/
> Lawyers: caps caps caps so there isn’t costly malpractice insurance.
Caps don’t always result in improved health outcomes.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?p...
> Maybe would also necessitate a federal review board to weed out "bad doctors".
This exists; each state medical board has a procedure for reviewing medical licenses.
https://www.mbc.ca.gov/
Forced vaccination was the problem here.
Uh, definitely not. The drug discovery and trial process is every bit as complex and expensive as it is for a reason. If you're serious about lowering the cost of getting compounds through the pipeline the first thing that should go is private equity's growing chokehold on the provider practices that perform clinical studies.
The providers have leverage and the ones with the most will screw you over unless you’re big enough to throw some weight around.
I honestly don’t see much change unless the government comes in and sets new rules that actually make sense.
Or is it that the Healthcare industry has tilted the government into making rules that favor the status-quo?
Ultimately, it is the government, not the industry, that sets the rules, and it is the government, not the industry, that is accountable to us.
Even without the argument that ultimately voters are responsible for the government they get in a country with free and fair elections like the U.S., health insurance is a very direct example of voters explicitly opting for a worse option.
The ACA was being written in 2009 and 2010 and the argument was whether it constrained the insurance industry too much or not enough. The very specific policy proposal on the table was the public option which would have allowed the govt to offer an insurance policy that would have effectively set a floor to the quality of policies the healthcare industry could offer and a ceiling on the cost.
And the 2010 election fell right in the middle of the debate and American voters overwhelmingly chose the politicians arguing against the public option and for fewer restraints on the insurance industry.
Beyond that you can just look at every other developed country in the world, and all of them have better healthcare because their voters constantly vote for politicians who offer better healthcare policy, as opposed to the U.S. where voters choose the opposite.
It's not an easy market to jump into; you spend a huge amount upfront on site construction (particularly if you're building standalone clinics outside of existing medical buildings, which is not unusual for urgent care), labor cost and complexity is high, and reimbursement cycles are long and painful. Healthcare chains scale like retail, not like software, with all the attendant cash management problems.
It feels like they did offer a superior service with lots of effort put into getting into the community, but I question both their decision to try and build a custom EHR -- yes, EHRs suck, but once you start building your own, you're no longer a medical services company, you're now an EHR company -- and not to pursue a regional-centric expansion strategy aligned with local health systems via contract or JV, instead choosing to build a small number of clinics across the country, which goes against proven successful buildout strategies in healthcare.
It's a shame they've gone under -- again, superior service, obviously a lot of care for their patients -- but "we went under because of cash management problems and inappropriate growth strategy" is a pretty standard story in the healthcare world.
Children are an attractive selling point for a company in the same way as cancer of some altruistic goal. Though here, although elder care exists, to me that seems like the market to disrupt and minimize costs in.
Thanks to decades of neo-liberalism (the idea of deregulation and "free market" economy). Americans have allowed corporations to form massive entities (in health insurance, UHC + optum bank + optima rx comes to mind) to the point of manipulating the price to their advantage. Then you have to deal with some companies that deny a majority of your claims in hopes that you (the patient and/or healthcare provider) give up (delay, deny, defend policies) or pay out of pocket for treatment.
American healthcare industry is a fucking mess.
This is more an anti-trust problem than deregulation. In the 80s Robert Bork and some others led a charge within the court system to rewrite federal anti-trust law without actually rewriting the laws. The result was that merger/acquisition guidelines were loosened, and the focus was on whether the result would cause the consumer to pay more money. And thanks to the way health care is paid for, it's a little complicated to make that case.
Loosened antitrust rules are a subset of deregulation, it can’t be any less deregulation than it is a matter of (too loose) antitrust.
Or email me: [email protected]
My team at Stripe was scattered all over, during COVID our company was fully remote, and prior to that I worked remotely on a presidential campaign. All of those were great experiences and, in their own ways, necessarily/understandably remote.
Compared to the early days at Gusto and my own startup, though, in-person has very real benefits that (in my opinion) are worth the challenges in hiring. I don’t know that it will always be true and can’t rule out that we’re wrong.
Having internal users and domain experts there in person makes a huge difference. It’s not impossible to do remotely, and maybe the tradeoff doesn’t make sense forever, but it’s worked well thus far.
For myself, I’m past the point of moving for companies. If they happen to be nearby I’ll make it work. If they’re not nearby, its either remote or I’m not at all interested anymore.
There are obviously huge, huge exceptions to this the moment you add hardware to the situation; or you need something you can't replicate well with screen-sharing.
Addendum: but I'm also mildly frustrated because it's a type of work I would be interested in; but I'm on the other coast, so I can't easily apply :)
(The health care industry is a mess, I agree!)
Medicare is better than private insurers at regulating prices (to wit: when Anthem tried to adopt Medicare's rules for anesthesiology comp, they were excoriated, and the governor of New York proposed a statute preventing them from doing it). But they still wildly overpay for services; in fact, what they pay is not really materially different from what private insurers do (it's less, but not by that much).
There is no cap for billing, but realize when an operation goes long it not only means we make less per hour, but there is also usually a good reason for that. Even if there isn’t a good reason, it’s not like we have control over how fast a surgeon operates.
From Medicare's policy manual:
https://www.cms.gov/files/document/chapter2cptcodes00000-019...
Now I made a good faith look through your comment history to see if you'd actually posted anything like that. Barring something I missed I can only assume you're working based on an incorrect assumption of how Medicare pays for the cost of anesthesia.There is a fixed component per procedure (base unit). This is based on the complexity of a procedure and roughly how long it's expected to take. That is why CMS would track how long a procedure is expected to take. There is a time based factor (time unit), and that is not limited in the way that BCBS was proposing.
Later
(The comment I replied to was edited extensively after I replied to it.)
How does that work? Do the providers have cartels that set prices?
Unless you're Kaiser, in which case you're the insurer and most of the providers, which is the whole idea behind Kaiser. But every other insurer --- and overwhelmingly, Americans aren't on Kaiser --- is beholden to providers. And of course, Kaiser competes with providers for service providers and vendors.
Providers is also kind of vague. You show up at a hospital, does the nurse practitioner who does your intake set the price of your ER service? Who specifically sets the prices?
The downside is that because Kaiser operates as an HMO, any specialists you need to see must be approved by your primary care physician (typically GP, ob-gyn, or uro). They have an abysmal record with mental health, and folks who need chronic non-routine care often struggle to get that care. If all you need are routine checkups, cheap prescriptions, routine immunizations, etc. they're quite competent.
Kaiser is a vertically integrated HMO. Like other HMOs, to get coverage (with a few exceptions) you need to see a provider within the (Kaiser) network. As a vertically integrated HMO the providers in the Kaiser network are all employed directly by Kaiser. So Kaiser sets the its own employee compensation.It's worth noting that all insurance companies are required to emergency care at any provider as if it were in network. If a Kaiser member were to go to a non-Kaiser ER they would see the same cost as if they'd gone to a Kaiser ER. Whatever Kaiser pays to the out of network hospital/staff is almost certainly negotiated beforehand.
HMOs, for all their problems, have many advantages as well, such as the aligned incentives you allude to.
I agree with you about the efficiency of HMOs, but customers hate HMOs.
A useful Google search: "National Health Expenditures by Type of Expenditure and Program: Calendar Year 2022". It's a single spreadsheet, and it's really something. It covers insurers (public and private), providers (hospitals and outpatient), facilities, state health care programs, even dental, all on one sheet. The numbers are hard to get around.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/business/dealbook/unitedh...
Or this:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/articl...
Fuck if I know what's going on between Medicare and UHC. It's a mess. Medicare Advantage is a hybrid Medicare/private system; once again, whatever fees were being passed to Medicare, they were coming from providers. Insurers can certainly inappropriately deny coverage, but they don't generally make de novo charges up. Charges come from providers.
Upcoding scandals, which literally appear to be what the UnitedHealth link you provided was about, were exactly what Anthem was trying to control for with its new announcement.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42495074
Healthcare is one of the most regulated industries in the United States.
Want to be a doctor? You've got the aptitude, the knowledge, the mindset, and the will, but a government-guaranteed cartel of medical schools won't let you in, so too damn bad. Learn to code.
Want to open a clinic? You really only need about a half-million in hardware to operate at the level of a 1980s hospital, but regulatory compliance will push your annual opex into the millions as a baseline, not to mention having to deal with the nightmare that is health insurance.
Those "massive entities" you mentioned are entirely protected from competition by force of law.
You know why healthcare used to be cheap? Nobody had insurance.
Anyone that had the aptitude and wanted to be a doctor basically could.
You went to the hospital, paid your bill, and that was that.
I'm not saying "zero regulation, caveat emptor!", but over the past hundred years, the precise opposite of "deregulation" has happened across every aspect of American life.
Will be consider mostly stupid/irrational, but I'll mention it:
Learn medicine, and practice outside of of the mainstream clandestinely (a past real world example would be abortion clinics on ships). It needs a group of committed/smart people to pull it off, so not easy. Also it cannot be offered to the public at large for several obvious reasons.
As a general rule one cannot involve 'average' people in such an endeavor. All organization settle down to the lowest common denominator. When it come to large organizations in govt/health/etc. they are prone to increasing corruption and bureaucracy if average people are involved.
Those places don't have a hellish Frankenstein's monster combination of public and private and a load of regulations at the federal and state levels all adding up to high costs that have to be passed on to the consumer, but also weird niches of market inefficiencies that can be exploited by anyone who's managed to luck or judge their way into an advantageous position.
They also don't fund most of the world's healthcare advancements, which the US does.
They also cut off care at a certain point, whereas in the US you not only have access to most of the cutting edge treatments in the world that just aren't available on single payer systems, as they don't provide enough value, you also can find someone to pay to do it. You can bankrupt yourself on cutting edge treatments if you like.
I don't know what the answer is, other than "try again" and have a nice multi-insurer model, which I think one of the Scandies has, that just competes on efficiency and has its payouts and insurables defined by government, or maybe a single payer model. Or make healthcare a state-level problem and have each state solve it differently without federal overhead.
Healthcare is an inelastic service: people will pay everything to get it. So private hospitals in a free market are pushed to bill their services as higher as possible. Actually, their prices would go to infinity, if not limited by people total savings and earnings.
So, here the insurance companies make the problem worse: they give people access to "infinite" credit. So you can pay for those exorbitant prices. But with insurance you just increased the pool of money people can use for health, so private hospitals can and will increase their pricing. Add more free market competition and you get the disaster of the USA healthcare system.
Because of that reason, basic economics, is that for profit Healthcare cannot work long term. The only way to make it work is making it a public service. But in USA politicians will cry that is comunism, so they won't do it.
And the USA Healthcare problem doesn't limit itself to USA. As americans are unable to pay for healthcare there, they started doing medical tourism, which is making health prices in other countries more expensive too.
And yet other countries have even more regulation, and manage to deliver cheaper and more equitable healthcare overall, with better public health outcomes when measured at the national level
For example: in Australia, the federal government is a near-monopsony purchaser of prescription drugs, so it has enormous negotiating power with the pharmaceutical companies. By contrast, in the US, the federal government’s role in purchasing drugs is much smaller: the end result is higher drug prices, although the downside of Australia’s model is it can delay availability of new drugs. (Those with unlimited ability to pay can still purchase drugs privately at whatever cost the manufacturer will sell them-you can even get bureaucrat approval to import unapproved drugs for personal use if you can find a senior clinician willing to assist you in it.)
The waiting for the patent to expire and buying in bulk keep down the costs down works. The US couldn't use the generic strategy because the drug companies get funded and create the new drugs this way. Cutting off the funding would mean no new drugs to copy so no new generics. Australia would have to start funding research.
The PBS listed medications are essentially price capped copays at the point of sale, with the bulk of the cost covered directly by the government (who negotiates prices with the manufacturer, and fronts the pharmacist distribution costs). Its the same pfizer etc patent protected medication, unless theres a generic version which chemist & prescriber can vend with patient consent.
That's not what the Australian government does.
Even for prescription drugs still under patent, the federal government negotiating on behalf of the whole country as a monopsony purchaser can demand (and get) much bigger discounts. (A monopoly is when a market effectively has only one seller, a monopsony is when a market effectively has only one buyer.)
Whereas, in the US, each insurer negotiates separately, so all but the very largest have weaker bargaining power than the Australian government has, simply because they don't represent as many insureds. The US has over 1000 health insurers, only the top two or three (such as UnitedHealth Group) have more insureds than the Australian government has (26 million).
Plus, even though a handful of very large US insurers such as UnitedHealth have more insureds than the Australian government does, the fact that the Australian government is a sovereign state and not just the purchaser but also the regulator and legislator gives it additional negotiating clout that such private insurers lack. Also, if UnitedHealth refuses to reach a deal with the drug manufacturer, they risk losing insurance customers to other insurers who are willing to do so; Australians can't realistically switch public health insurers (moving overseas is the only real way; private health insurance usually has very modest prescription drug benefits)
> Australia would have to start funding research.
Australia actually does have significant medical research funding. Unfortunately it seems to be a struggle to find good data on exactly how much (in easily comparable terms, such as %GDP) – the WHO's statistics [0] on this topic are missing both the US and Australia for whatever reason. But even in the absence of hard figures, I'd totally believe the US spends at least double (on a % GDP basis). But I think that's part of a broader economic problem with Australian underspending on R&D (both public and private) which goes beyond just health.
The other problem I know, is Australia has largely lost its ability to productise pharmaceutical innovations (outside of certain niche areas), which means even when some novel drug is discovered in Australia, they need to turn to to a US or European company to turn it into a product. But that's more a consequence of poor industrial policy (most of Australia's pharmaceutical manufacturing sector moved overseas, and what's left is mostly lower-end stuff like vitamins and herbal supplements, with rare exceptions such as CSL) than anything to do with drug pricing.
[0] https://www.who.int/observatories/global-observatory-on-heal...
That doesn't matter to this point. What matters is the US pays for the R&D that Australia gets to benefit from. You can stop R&D and drive down prices, as long as you're comfortable making world drug discovery grind to a halt.
By the late 19th century, we already had general anaesthesia (developed starting in the 1840s), antiseptics (we’ve had them for centuries but their use became much more common in the late 19th century as the germ theory received broad acceptance), smallpox vaccine (very late 18th century development), a number of drugs (some known since antiquity others newly discovered), etc. Yes doctors were a lot more limited in what they could do back then, but even within those limits they saved people’s lives all the time. If your arm had gangrene, they could amputate it under general anaesthesia, antiseptics to try to prevent infection, and provide post-operative pain relief - which could literally save your life. Women with breast cancer received mastectomies (known about since antiquity but became much more common in 19th century, especially as general anaesthesia made the surgery more tolerable)-due to the lack of chemotherapy or immunotherapy, that wouldn’t do much for those with more advanced cancer, but if the cancer was sufficiently localised could be curative and lifesaving
This isn’t unique to America. In countries with government healthcare, the government determines your rates. Typically government rates are lower than private insurance rates in the US, too.
For as much as Americans like to complain about insurance companies, we actually get a lot more care and pay higher rates to providers than other countries. There’s a reason doctor pay in the United States is so much higher, among other things.
We get a lot more care, pay higher rates, and have worse outcomes.
That last bit is why people are pissed.
Life expectancy in general in the US could also be due to the amount of gun violence, as well. Nothing to do with the quality of healthcare.
The US government does not care that much about obesity, gun violence and all that jazz because it is not the one paying for the damages it does.
All these factors contribute to the comparatively poorer life expectancy of Americans, which is, I agree, only a surface metric.
The more important dynamic you’re pointing to is that private insurers don’t care because our insurance is tied to our employers and therefore is expected (by insurers) to churn every 4 years or so.
It literally makes zero sense for a private insurer to invest in an American’s healthcare results more than 3 or so years down the road.
Surprise surprise, we have best-in-class care for emergencies and complex acute cases, and absolutely atrocious management of early disease and lifestyle problems (which is when it’s most cost-effective to solve health problems).
The fact that Americans intuit that it’s not is a worrying sign of just how broken our system is
Any evidence for this?
I don’t think this is a broadly held belief, I think it’s the “eeehhrm actually…” contrarian belief that’s trying to discredit the consensus view that our healthcare system gets very poor results for the money. So it shows up in places like this exact HN thread.
One of the strongest levers we have to improve the “inputs” you’re describing is a better primary care system. America’s has been absolutely gutted over the last 20 years by interactions of various economic and regulatory dynamics including (notably) the anti-competitive vertical integration of pay-viders and pay-vider+PBMs like UnitedHealth Group.
It is absolutely not true there aren’t system-level changes we can make in healthcare and insurance to help address this.
Having access to doctors helps to manage disease.
Obesity is a disease.
In particular, having access to PCPs helps to manage obesity.
Our healthcare system yields poor access to healthcare.
In particular, it yields poor access to PCPs.
Ergo the obese population is in part an output of and not an external input into the design of our healthcare system.
Ergo changes to the healthcare system absolutely can — and in fact should have as a key goal to — yield changes to levels of obesity.
> “ Rearrange healthcare/government insurance models all you want; it can't fix that.”
This claim is false. The mental model of an obese population being exclusively an input into our healthcare system does not track with what we know about the relationship between healthcare and obesity.
But hey, it's not like the US is a democracy exactly given that public opinion generally doesn't translate into policy changes anymore.
One account is that the US has too many medical facilities in urban areas. In other words, there might be five hospitals each with its own radiology equipment. That equipment is idle some of the time, so you could close some of the imaging departments and leave just one or two for the metro area. That would obviously inconvenience some people, but the gist of the criticism is that the US duplicates medical capacity for the sake of convenience.
The other criticism is that there are too few clinics and such. That's why there was a big push to open health clinics in pharmacies and urgent care locations recently.
Now I know these aren't mutually exclusive; you can have too few clinics and too many hospitals. But I would like to know if anyone is more informed than I am what validity there is to each criticism.
I'm curious what the truth is regarding the number and character of brick-and-mortar healthcare facilities in the US: too many? too few? Because it looks like this company was opening physical clinics.
> The other criticism is that there are too few clinics and such. That's why there was a big push to open health clinics in pharmacies and urgent care locations recently.
Funny enough, germany has the exact same two problems.
* Too many small urban hospitals do too many things, but have no speciality, leading to high cost, underutilization and higher risk procedures.
* Too few specialist doctors for checkups leading to long waiting times.
Even within urban areas care is uneven. Hospitals are concentrated in the more wealthy parts of San Francisco and the poorer (e.g. southeastern) parts see sparse coverage. One of the big points of contention when Sutter Health bought out St Luke's hospital in SF was that Sutter wanted to transition from primary care to more profitable specialties. This would've left the neighborhood bereft of primary care.
In more rural areas you'll find that funding is a political football. As that funding wanes so does the level of care. On top of that the post-Roe v Wade environment encourages some folks to migrate towards urban areas in more "permissive" states.
In terms of too much urban coverage. When I needed an ultrasound through UCSF I had to book it out months in advance. It's not clear to me that there is a ton of duplication there — more the point if I'd looked elsewhere I would've had to figure out what was/wasn't in network with my insurance provider. Last I looked Kaiser has a grand total of eight urgent care clinics in the Bay Area. There are nine counties in the Bay Area. That's efficient from a business standpoint but leaves plenty of customers out in the cold as Kaiser covers out-of-network services in very limited circumstances. Likewise, try to find a GP that accepts insurance and is taking new patience. When I checked eons ago UCSF had a nearly year long wait.
As far as convenience vs efficiency, the argument was that to achieve the efficiencies found in other countries, which often have longer wait times for services than the US, you do have to sacrifice convenience. The US, by treating healthcare like a consumer good rather than a rationed utility, has built out excess capacity for the sake of convenience. This is, according to the argument, part of the reason we spend more on healthcare than peers. (Healthcare must always be rationed; the US does so on price rather than wait times.)
The lack of rural providers is largely a staffing issue, but once the staff go whole departments (e.g. obstetrics) get shuttered and it then becomes a larger problem than merely finding physicians.
Having been through the meat grinder a few times I don't think there's as much "convenience" as proponents of for-profit health care would like everyone to believe. Attributing the uneven distribution of care to convenience misses the mark. Profit incentivizes specialties that can charge higher prices and disincentives primary care. That's not convenience, it's profit. Again. St. Luke's.
Crucially, among those who leave are not just patients. There are also doctors leaving.
Or outright kill them due to a delay in a critical finding. This is more than a convenience factor, and moving patients between facilities is non-trivial.
It's likely the other way around from what you are saying, with limits to market entry enabling the existing facilities to charge more than the efficient price for the service.
I work for a hospital chain that has done similar things. A lot of the failing hospitals in little towns across the US is because of this, and the consolidation that's happening is to remove similar inefficiencies. People that live in these little towns with failing hospitals see any move towards correcting these inefficiencies as evidence that our medical system is failing and use it to vote for right wing politicians who make empty promises.
If you have 2 hospitals and one takes your insurance and the other doesn't you still get service. If you consolidate to one and they don't take your insurance you may have to drive hours to get medical service.
A huge failure of the system is how health insurance works.
I visited their clinics for my daughter several times when she was a toddler for ear aches and other ailments— I found the experience refreshing: instant online booking, no BS registration and online communication with staff was seamless. Very sad to see them go so abruptly.
Up until this morning when I was told they were gone, I had no idea they were YC or otherwise VC funded. Just came here to pour one out for a genuinely helpful and pleasant medical company.
Currently, there’s a doctor shortage problem (supposedly, they can’t hire, or there aren’t enough positions, depending on who you ask), which has caused issues with the quality of care (according to the doctors that went on strike over this, and personal experience).
It’s unclear what the root cause or solution is.
Anyway, you can get the experience you described, and it’s great until you hit an understaffed corner case health problem.
Most taxpayers have to realize the loss to take a tax deduction against their gains, but some tax elections allow you to do the same without finding a buyer for the worthless shares, which narrows down the incentives
Mark to Market election
as well as non-profits
some non-profit investors have stricter scrutiny as their charitable distribution requirement is based on net assets. so there is an incentive to arbitrarily mark malperforming investments down to lower values, but being able to get the business to announce their failure supports it better
Just thinking out loud
[1] makes it sound like they were assuming a never-ending stream of venture funding and didn't make a sustainable business. It'd be interesting to see where the money went.
[1] https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2022/09/portland-pediatr...
Could you explain "indigent" here, please. It looks like a typo.
Effectively it is no cost care for those who are sufficiently poor.
You also said "What will happen to the bills?" - what does that mean?
Cheers Jon
My mom refuses to leave the US healthcare system despite the costs because
1. She pays for insurance, not surgery (in her mind)
2. regardless of the keening US healthcare system is the best in the world
The problem is not that pediatric urgent care is not a viable business.
The problem is that it's not a great VC-funded business.
VC investors are hoping for huge growth and eventually earning back multiples of their investment.
That's going to be really hard to do in this segment of the health-care market.
We've got a wonderful pediatric urgent-care place in our area, backed by the best children's hospital in our metro region, and it seems to be doing great. But does that mean it could ever grow at the rate needed to satisfy VC investors? Probably not.
With the decline in birth rates in the US, didn't seem like a sustainable model from the get go.