This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Good faith estimate. Details of what needs to go on the sheet of paper can be haggled over. I'm sure we can come to a compromise. I bet you can do that pretty easily. Sounds a lot more efficient than a lecture. Glad you're starting to come up with better ideas than having the head of billing personally show up and manually do every single estimate and talk to every single patient (but I do remember the prior catastrophization, which is why I'm feeling pretty good right now).
The funny thing is, if this sort of law actually got passed, I'm pretty confident you'd figure it out pretty quick. It's actually pretty simple compared to a lot of other things that happen in your industry and others. You'd stop swearing that it would take 24/7 365 bullshit (which is Obvious Nonsense) and just do the damn thing. Shit, I am intimately familiar with the scramble to implement EHRs. Sucked for a while, probably still some lingering unintended consequences. But you figured out a process and did it. Bottom line: I absolutely do not believe your catastrophization of what it would take. It's Obvious Nonsense.
EDIT: BTW, you don't actually have to convince me. You have to convince the people who are willing to shoot CEOs dead in the streets of New York City and those who are cheering for them.
Actually no. A rule very much like this was passed a few years ago. Guess what happened? The information was inaccurate in the places that attempted to follow it and many hospitals chose to just be out of compliance and ignore it.
Citation needed.
https://www.cms.gov/priorities/key-initiatives/hospital-price-transparency
https://oig.hhs.gov/reports/all/2024/not-all-selected-hospitals-complied-with-the-hospital-price-transparency-rule/
That's one of the rules I've already mentioned, and I've already discussed why it didn't really accomplish anything. Moreover, it didn't even attempt to do what you just proposed.
EDIT: Also, that report shows that 63% did comply entirely within that timeframe. At least from the standpoint of "can you do this", the answer seemed to be "yes" for the thing that rule wanted. They're reporting failure as failing in any component, so I'm sure that'll be cleaned up in a few more years.
The government said "publish price transparency" and a third of hospitals just said "no." The remaining 2/3s published random nonsense. And there were penalties for this!
Because the price doesn't matter.
It's pure cost disease. Zero value.
Everyone has one or more ideas like this that don't do anything useful at all and increase costs and complexity.
And then they get mad when shit is expensive or the doctor can't spend time with you and explain things but they have tons of nonsensical administrative work.
If you are going to make things more expensive do it in a way that provides some value, but better yet don't make things more expensive for no reason especially if you are going to complain about costs.
This is (and you are proposing additional) regulation that adds nothing of value and increases the administrative burden that is already a third of healthcare spending.
Nah, man. They didn't ask for anything like you suggested. And two thirds complied fully within a pretty short time frame, because what they asked for obviously could be done. I'm sure in a couple more years, that number will be higher.
Just do it. Just do what you know you can already do. What you already admitted that you can do; it was a lie before when you said you couldn't. You already admitted that you do do from time to time. We've been through every objection, in detail. I've responded, in detail. You're all out of excuses at this point and are just resting on speculative claims that it could possibly take a modicum of effort. Boo hoo. Grow up. They're literally shooting your people on the streets of New York City. Others are cheering. Stop lying to yourself and to others. Actually inform your patients and actually get informed consent. You probably will like the haphazard results that will follow if you don't clean up your act less.
No they are shooting people who work for insurance. The people who are the problem. Hospitals, patients, and physicians all get screwed by insurance.
Informed consent has nothing to do with price, because the price doesn't matter. We discuss the risks and benefits of a given medical treatment. The cost is between you and your insurance and/or the government. This is to some extent by law (for instance emergency care).
I also can't promise you a price or cost or charge before hand. That remains unchanged. I can get you rough estimates maybe, depending on the thing. That's not the same.
You have yet to explain how providing more detail on cost, price, or charges adds any value to the system.
First, hilariously naive that you think you'll be spared if the anger boils over into something like regulation. Second, if you're going to claim that they're the problem, tell me how you're going to fix it. I don't want to hear you just complaining and finger pointing; I want solutions. How are you going to start cleaning up this mess?
Price is part of the costs/benefits. You are practicing medicine unethically if you are not properly informing your patients of the costs/benefits.
Not a strict promise. We've been through this. You know this. You know that you can do better.
It is unethical to perform a procedure on a patient before acquiring informed consent. It's basic decency in business practice. It's good to stop lying to people and telling them that you can't do something that you know you can. I'd think in recent years, you'd be a bit in tune with the idea that if your profession is being seen as lying to the public, it can cause a significant reduction in your status and credibility. Conversely, if you start doing the basic thing, patients will have more faith in the medical system, believing that the market is operating more fairly and that they are not being overcharged for services. This fosters greater societal trust in the medical system and encourages broader participation in preventive and other health measures. Price transparency is an important component of many properties of markets. It can affect people's decision-making and allocate resources more efficiently. It reduces information asymmetry. It reduces surprises and the anger they generate. When patients know the cost of their treatment options, they can plan financially, leading to higher adherence to prescribed treatments. For example, patients who know they can afford the cost of necessary medications or follow-up procedures are more likely to stick with the treatment regimen, leading to better health outcomes. It speeds up price discovery, increases consumer welfare, and it can also be linked to encouraging innovation. The Nobel prize that Stigler got for this sort of stuff was looooooong ago.
You have yet to explain how doing everything you can to hide prices, lying to people, telling them it's impossible adds any value to the system.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link