Hospital price info alone won't help consumers make informed health care decisions
Various media made much to-do this week about the fact that hospitals charge different prices for the same procedures. Go to one hospital for a certain medical procedure and they'll charge Medicare thousands of dollars more — or less — than another hospital in the same town.
Breaking: The Tribune-Review told you that in September 2011. So please pardon my yawn.
As part of an award-winning, yearlong series called “Code Green: Bleeding Dollars,” colleague Andrew Conte and I reported how the cost for the same medical procedures can vary wildly not only by region and state, but within the same city and even in the same hospital. How much that procedure costs depends on who pays. Government and private insurers use complex reimbursement formulas that, in the simplest terms, make no sense to consumers.
“Code Green” (www.bleedingdollars.com) provided detailed examples, such as prices for an MRI scan that ranged from more than $1,300 at a hospital in Pittsburgh to $425 at a Monroeville clinic, that leave consumers scratching our heads.
So when the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released “price information” Wednesday for 100 of the most frequently billed medical procedures for Medicare patients, I couldn't help but think we've been down this road. The issue now, it seems to me, is can we please do something about this?
As the federal Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” phases in, the Obama administration is touting the pricing information as the next great thing since the iPhone. “Basic information about health premiums and hospital charges has long been hidden from consumers,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters. Reallllly?
When the almost impossible to navigate Excel spreadsheet was posted on the Medicare website, the Obama administration announced it was part of a plan to make health care more affordable and accessible. Though that's certainly a noble goal, the reality is the numbers are almost meaningless.
St. Clair Hospital might “charge” $22,785 to treat your pneumonia, but it doesn't mean that's the amount it will get paid by Medicare or private insurance payers. Medicare sets its own rates, and private insurers negotiate discounts. In other words, they don't pay the full $22,785.
The charge discrepancies are certainly fascinating. I looked through the spreadsheet and found that UPMC Presbyterian charges Medicare $26,226 to treat “chest pain.” The same treatment at Allegheny General Hospital is a $17,158 charge. Does a higher cost get you better care? It depends on who is doing the treatment. That's where the consumer is left hanging.
We need far more consistency from hospitals and doctors when it comes to pricing. And we need far more information about quality of care to make informed decisions. Here's a starting point: Can someone please make this new website more user-friendly for those curious enough to even look at this database?
Having price information for a medical procedure is not a bad idea, but it's only one piece of information needed to make an informed decision. Forgive me for pointing to “Code Green” again, but other issues that experts pointed out as crucial to containing costs include cutting down on hospital readmissions for preventable conditions and on aggressive, often unnecessary treatment hospitals give dying patients — sometimes when they don't even want it.
Instead of paying more money, let's pay more attention.
Luis Fábregas is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7998 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Perryopolis man killed in 1-car crash
- Lopsided loss to Eagles shows Steelers have issues aplenty
- Unusually cold winter, spring reduces population of Western Pa. stink bugs
- Hero Franklin Regional security guard out of work
- Steelers notebook: Keisel always hoped to return
- Stocks snap 4-day rally on Yellen speech, Russia-Ukraine developments
- Woman in stable condition after Hill District shooting that killed daughter
- Harrison’s 5 RBIs help Pirates pound Brewers
- Rossi: Time with Penguins taught Bylsma importance of stability
- Labor board’s subpoenas in UPMC case are not relevant, federal judge says
- Records: Steelers RB Bell admitted smoking pot before traffic stop but denied being high