I agree. So how do you break such an oligopolistic system? Maybe by introducing the one thing it tries to hide in order to stay alive: radical price transparency. At the very bottom are the patients who search for care and primary care givers, let's include surgery centers for large but rare tickets. If you connect both fundamental entities directly, you create a brutally and publicly transparent market place where competition, innovation and price pressure could force the market to first just slightly shift but eventually see falling costs because some will offer better prices at higher quality. Without such an open platform though, I don't see how any regulation or for that matter functional changes in the technological landscape will make any big impact.
I can't agree more. Coming from socialized medicine countries like New Zealand and Australia this is a no-brainer for me. Medicare (which EVERY Australian gets) sets reasonable rates for almost any procedure. They also give Doctors incentive's to charge these set rates. A doctor can charge what they want, but if they do their patients have to pay out of pocket and go to medicare to get compensated. That means less patients choose those doctors. A doctor that charges the scheduled fees is able to "Bulk Bill" that means that the government will transfer payment directly to the doctor (I am not sure how regularly), which means they are likely to have far more patients and really it keeps everything more convenient (No cash on premises, etc.)
On another point, I think that a serious problem is Tort Law. Unfortunately it's such a complicated debate I don't think it could ever be resolved in the US. I personally believe the New Zealand government has this perfect with the ACA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporati...). While it is still possible to pursue a civil suit against someone, in the case of a car accident for example. No lawyer is going to do this pro-bono. You have the right to claim medical and loss of work directly from the ACA, therefore the likelihood of a New Zealand judge awarding a large claim would require some serious negligence by the other driver and even then the cost of pursuing that would not be worth the risk. After all, a "normal" person would be satisfied with being medically taken care of and having any loss of income recovered. This will not sit well with those that feel "SOMEONE SHOULD PAY FOR THIS! AND THIS IS THE PAY DAY I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR"
Comments
I agree. So how do you break such an oligopolistic system? Maybe by introducing the one thing it tries to hide in order to stay alive: radical price transparency. At the very bottom are the patients who search for care and primary care givers, let's include surgery centers for large but rare tickets. If you connect both fundamental entities directly, you create a brutally and publicly transparent market place where competition, innovation and price pressure could force the market to first just slightly shift but eventually see falling costs because some will offer better prices at higher quality. Without such an open platform though, I don't see how any regulation or for that matter functional changes in the technological landscape will make any big impact.
I can't agree more. Coming from socialized medicine countries like New Zealand and Australia this is a no-brainer for me. Medicare (which EVERY Australian gets) sets reasonable rates for almost any procedure. They also give Doctors incentive's to charge these set rates. A doctor can charge what they want, but if they do their patients have to pay out of pocket and go to medicare to get compensated. That means less patients choose those doctors. A doctor that charges the scheduled fees is able to "Bulk Bill" that means that the government will transfer payment directly to the doctor (I am not sure how regularly), which means they are likely to have far more patients and really it keeps everything more convenient (No cash on premises, etc.)
On another point, I think that a serious problem is Tort Law. Unfortunately it's such a complicated debate I don't think it could ever be resolved in the US. I personally believe the New Zealand government has this perfect with the ACA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporati...). While it is still possible to pursue a civil suit against someone, in the case of a car accident for example. No lawyer is going to do this pro-bono. You have the right to claim medical and loss of work directly from the ACA, therefore the likelihood of a New Zealand judge awarding a large claim would require some serious negligence by the other driver and even then the cost of pursuing that would not be worth the risk. After all, a "normal" person would be satisfied with being medically taken care of and having any loss of income recovered. This will not sit well with those that feel "SOMEONE SHOULD PAY FOR THIS! AND THIS IS THE PAY DAY I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR"