Comments on: Out of Pocket Medical Expenses

By: Anne Zuber

Anne Zuber — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:58:18 +0000

Jeffrey! Hello.
I just found out about you. Funny how a lady across the nation can find out about you while searching for a Swiss made technology glass. Have you heard of the vitalizing glass for HERBs – nuts – seeds – oils and waters? The science of Miron.
Google Miron-glas. You will LOVE the genius of your name sake; which apparently means: World of Miracles.
Violiv is the USA brand name of Miron. The cannabis market is our best friend; as one that Knows quality and aromatic potency.
Yours,
A.Zuber

By: dfvazan

dfvazan — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:40:45 +0000

Whether the real dollar cost of out-of-pocket expense has modestly grown or sky rocketed, I regularly see the effect of insulating the patient from the true cost of healthcare.

New technology has produced a variety of diagnostic tests in the field of ophthalmology. If someone walks into my office with optic nerves suspicious for glaucoma, I can immediately order at least three tests, which I can repeat every six months, to help diagnosis and treat. If they are insured it is virtually guaranteed the patient will agree to the tests (they are immune to the cost anyway). If they are self-paying or have a high-deductible health savings account, we have a discussion about the value of the tests and the alternatives. If we choose to do the tests we will usually charge the patient a reduced fee.

I imagine this is happening in every field of medicine to various degrees. Cost consciousness and competition would provide a powerful incentive to actually “bend the cost curve down.” And it wouldn’t require a new entitlement system.

By: Adnan

Adnan — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:34:13 +0000

And by less, I mean less in terms of out-of-pocket costs.

The opposite is most definitely true for total healthcare expenditures.

By: Adnan

Adnan — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:30:36 +0000

Bob,

I was literally wondering the same thing when I saw the graph, buuuut I did some of my own mathing on the same data, and this is what I got:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tTLW2ITceT7JD9zVQe4pyuQ&single=true&gid=0&output=html

% of GDP and % of GDP per capita are equivalent here, so basically, it shows that we’ve been paying less (in real terms) over time. Doc’s got a point.

By: bob

bob — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:19:39 +0000

Any chance we could see that same graph in real dollar? I have a feeling that paying 55% of your healthcare expenses in 1960 is still less than paying 13% in 2010. But I could be wrong.

By: Jess Austin

Jess Austin — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:14:35 +0000

For those who can't easily read ppt, here is the graph in a more convenient form.

By: dfvazan

dfvazan — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:41:33 +0000

“The opponents [of gov't subsidy] care mainly about efficiency.” To this I would add that we also care about indivdual choice, real cost containment, quality of life and medical innovation.

One of biggest contributors to the explosion of insurance premiums is growth of the third-party payer. This has occurred regardless of the source: public or private; and framing the debate as pro-private insurance vs. pro-gov’t insurance is specious. Rather the argument has always been between the rights individuals and the power of corporatists.