Hospitals will have to post prices online starting January 1

[Mr Person]

Are you saying that the new rule isn't better than before? Why don't you discuss rather than attack?

I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about, hence, you were immediately shot down.

I'm further saying that it is downright embarrassing to watch someone try to cough over a fart. Just own the fart. You farted it, right there, for all to see and hear.

You think you're saving face, but really, you're just farting even louder.






Did the simple analogy help?

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes, it is the online component they don't like, because it will confuse people who just see cost.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...ces-online-theres-just-one-problem-2018-04-26

Sure, the wall that price transparency efforts run into is that health care doesn't really have prices in the traditional sense. In order to get to a level where comparative price information is usable, you need insurers to produce their own dedicated tools for use by their enrollees instead of asking the health care providers to do it.

Beyond the requirement in the ACA, under the previous administration CMS started publicly releasing the hospital charges that it collected from bills submitted to Medicare. The primary point of all this seems to be shining a light on the absurdity of health care financing and/or shaming some or all of the major actors.

 

[Praxas]

What the hell is your problem with reading the OP's, and following links....I have pointed this out. And it isn't even what the crux of the OP is about....So, fail somewhere else thank you.

Nah I'll continue to rightfully point out your backpedlling, thank you. But you can go pound sand if you don't like it.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

From the article cited in my OP:

"Though hospitals are already required to make their prices available in some form, and to allow patients to access their medical records, the new rule aims to simplify both and increase overall transparency."

https://qz.com/1509095/hospital-to-post-the-costs-of-medical-services/

Just stop.

That's better than the alternative, which is strange surprise high pricing, and no warning to consumers who

The big presses spend all their space on one thing: telling us how great Obamacare is and how more government in health care is always good thing. This move, which involves a regulation, must throw them for a loop, given that it's a regulation, yet it empowers consumers more than bureaucrats.

Both imply this is a new. But it isn't new.

You got your ass handed to you here.

 

[Mycroft]

No, genius. This is required by Obamacare.

As Trump's HHS admitted this summer in the reg you're touting.



Meanwhile, the GOP is working in federal court to get this requirement thrown out with the rest of the ACA.

So what's the rest of the Obamacare story? They proposed a rule and a final rule back in 2015. They were required to develop guidelines. Did the Obama administration actually enact any rules or guidelines? Or did they blow it off?

In any case, there's no question about it now. Next year those hospitals will HAVE to post their prices.

Oh...and if Obamacare gets thrown out, this current law will still apply.

 

[j-mac]

I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about, hence, you were immediately shot down.

I'm further saying that it is downright embarrassing to watch someone try to cough over a fart. Just own the fart. You farted it, right there, for all to see and hear.

You think you're saving face, but really, you're just farting even louder.






Did the simple analogy help?

No, it was kind of stupid....

You, as well as others are choosing to not discuss the topic....So, have fun with that, I'm done with you.

 

[Greenbeard]

So what's the rest of the Obamacare story? They proposed a rule and a final rule back in 2015. They were required to develop guidelines. Did the Obama administration actually enact any rules or guidelines? Or did they blow it off?

In any case, there's no question about it now. Next year those hospitals will HAVE to post their prices.

The HHS guidance from four years ago requires that hospitals make available to the public their chargemaster or an equivalent. The mechanism for doing so was not prescribed based on the argument that "hospitals are in the best position to determine the exact manner and method by which to make the list public in accordance with the guidelines."

Oh...and if Obamacare gets thrown out, this current law will still apply.

The current law on this comes from the ACA. It doesn't apply if it gets struck down.

If your point is that the individual mandate has nothing to do with a requirement that hospitals publicly post their charges, no kidding. That's why the severability argument made by that wingnut judge in Texas is so silly.

 

[j-mac]

Both imply this is a new. But it isn't new.

You got your ass handed to you here.

I don't think so...But, you are free to think what you want...Unfortunately for you and others it only looks like rather than address the topic, you are fixated on attacking me for simply posting and trying to discuss why the media won't report on this....Or, that no matter what side of the isle you are on, this is a good thing. I think it makes you and others look petty, but hey, that's nothing new either.

 

[Greenbeard]

I don't think so...But, you are free to think what you want...Unfortunately for you and others it only looks like rather than address the topic, you are fixated on attacking me for simply posting and trying to discuss why the media won't report on this....Or, that no matter what side of the isle you are on, this is a good thing. I think it makes you and others look petty, but hey, that's nothing new either.

In your defense, it was Monica Showalter who stupidly claimed that implementing the ACA is "chipping away" at it. But you know you had to take at least a few licks for going along with it, right?

 

[j-mac]

The HHS guidance from four years ago requires that hospitals make available to the public their chargemaster or an equivalent. The mechanism for doing so was not prescribed based on the argument that "hospitals are in the best position to determine the exact manner and method by which to make the list public in accordance with the guidelines."

And have they been? What is the compliance since this reg was enacted?

 

[Helix]

Hospitals will have to post prices online starting January 1

that sounds like a wonderful idea. i fully support it.

 

[Greenbeard]

And have they been? What is the compliance since this reg was enacted?

That's a good question, coming from the deregulation crowd. I doubt much effort at all has been put into active enforcement.

That's because, as I mentioned somewhere above, the Obama administration started publicly releasing lists of hospitals' charges itself: Medicare Hospital Charge Data Released. Cut out the middleman.

 

[Mycroft]

The HHS guidance from four years ago requires that hospitals make available to the public their chargemaster or an equivalent. The mechanism for doing so was not prescribed based on the argument that "hospitals are in the best position to determine the exact manner and method by which to make the list public in accordance with the guidelines."

There is no indication that the rule was never implemented.

The current law on this comes from the ACA. It doesn't apply if it gets struck down.

I've seen nothing that indicates this Inpatient Prospective Payment System rule came about from any requirement of Obamacare. Do you have something that shows your contention to be true?

If your point is that the individual mandate has nothing to do with a requirement that hospitals publicly post their charges, no kidding. That's why the severability argument made by that wingnut judge in Texas is so silly.

I made no point about the individual mandate. Dismissed.

 

[Greenbeard]

I've seen nothing that indicates this Inpatient Prospective Payment System rule came about from any requirement of Obamacare. Do you have something that shows your contention to be true?

Why don't you read the thread? The rule itself notes this (already quoted on the first page this thread), as it must. Rules don't just happen, they implement laws. Their authority derives from the statutory authority they are executing.

This rule pertains to Section 2718(e) of the Public Health Service Act, which was added by the Affordable Care Act. No ACA, no 2718(e).

(e) Standard hospital charges
Each hospital operating within the United States shall for each year establish (and update) and make public (in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services provided by the hospital, including for diagnosis-related groups established under section 1886(d)(4) of the Social Security Act.

See page 23 of: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Dismissed.

 

[OldFatGuy]

As usual the political bickering fails to recognize the greater issues concerning patients, providers and insurers of the medical world without examining changes that are occurring despite politicians and the industry itself.

No one who is ill, especially those gravely ill, has the time, patience, or concern with price shopping. Transparency over charges is of no matter to the individual having a heart attack entering an ER. Staying alive is what matters. This is called cutting to the chase.

Later, patients who survive and insurers are concerned they are paying too much, providers not enough.

Not that long ago, few providers understood the need for proper sanitation, germ theory and so forth, let alone the use of anesthesia. How long before providers are replaced with AI and we view many of today's standard practices as barbaric? Those of us who own Apple Watches and the associated health apps are on the cusp of what is coming. Right now my watch is monitoring my blood pressure, reporting hourly to my computer, which in turn reports to the medical team supervising my heart health, sugar levels, exercise, dietary intake, pharmaceutical adjustment and so forth. The team observes, their computer programs dictate. Next month, when my pacemaker is replaced, the surgery will be performed by a robot. Superior control over incision, placement and so forth, with the surgeon having used his computer and imaging to determine the paths taken, as the machine learns to a point whereby the surgeon is ancillary. This is the future of medical provision. Whether treatment for a cold, a broken bone, cancer tailored medicines for each patient, and so on. The entire basis of costs and delivery are in a period of revolution. Quibbling over pricing won't change anything. Finding out how to provide the same high quality of care for all Americans, and developing preventative care through technology is the future. Not exercising enough, your jewelry will tell you. Not eating best for yourself, your belt buckle will give you an alarm. Maybe not specifically as I suggest, but you get the idea. We will be concerned by an economic class distinction that allows those with to benefit and those without left out, or we find a way to equalize the playing field for the benefit of all.

Gotta go, my sneakers are demanding we go for a walk.

 

[Mycroft]

Why don't you read the thread? The rule itself notes this (already quoted on the first page this thread), as it must. Rules don't just happen, they implement laws. Their authority derives from the statutory authority they are executing.

This rule pertains to Section 2718(e) of the Public Health Service Act, which was added by the Affordable Care Act. No ACA, no 2718(e).



See page 23 of: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Dismissed.

Perhaps you can show me exactly what establishes that the Inpatient Prospective Payment System rule was implemented because of Obamacare, because this...https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2018...ps-in-secretary-azars-value-based-agenda.html...doesn't say anything about Obamacare. In fact, that link says this new rule is part of the current HHS Secretary's agenda.

On Tuesday, HHS’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the draft Fiscal Year 2019 Inpatient Prospective Payment System rule, which contains proposals to advance HHS Secretary Alex Azar’s agenda for moving to a healthcare system that pays for value, as well as a request for information regarding future value-based reforms.

 

[Greenbeard]

Perhaps you can show me exactly what establishes that the Inpatient Prospective Payment System rule was implemented because of Obamacare, because this...https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2018...ps-in-secretary-azars-value-based-agenda.html...doesn't say anything about Obamacare. In fact, that link says this new rule is part of the current HHS Secretary's agenda.

The IPPS rule wasn't implemented because of Obamacare, nor did I say it was. CMS releases an IPPS rule every single year, which governs all the details of how Medicare will reimburse for acute inpatient services in the coming year. That's why the last one was over 600 pages. Same with its OPPS rule for hospital outpatient services, its physician fee schedule final rule, and so on.

Lots of things in the rule are there because of the ACA, however. For instance, the quality reporting program or the value-based purchasing program. It's nice that Azar has picked up the mantle of moving to a health system that pays for value (one that's been an HHS priority for almost ten years now--indeed Burwell set explicit goals for the percentage of Medicare payments tied to value back in 2015) but without the authorities to do so provided by the ACA he's going to find that impossible. So he better hope that dumb ruling doesn't stand.

The provisions in the IPPS rule implementing 2718(e) are there because of the ACA. There would still be an IPPS rule if the ACA went away. The rule would not, however, include much in the way of value-based reforms (since those are rooted in the ACA) and there wouldn't be transparency requirements around hospital charges (since that requirement become law via the ACA).

Does it surprise me that none of the ACA's opponents know what they've been tried to get thrown out? No. Does it disgust me? Yes.

 

[Airyaman]

Who are "they"?

https://revcycleintelligence.com/ne...cerned-about-hospital-price-transparency-rule

 

[Mycroft]

The IPPS rule wasn't implemented because of Obamacare, nor did I say it was. CMS releases an IPPS rule every single year, which governs all the details of how Medicare will reimburse for acute inpatient services in the coming year. That's why the last one was over 600 pages. Same with its OPPS rule for hospital outpatient services, its physician fee schedule final rule, and so on.

Lots of things in the rule are there because of the ACA, however. For instance, the quality reporting program or the value-based purchasing program. It's nice that Azar has picked up the mantle of moving to a health system that pays for value (one that's been an HHS priority for almost ten years now--indeed Burwell set explicit goals for the percentage of Medicare payments tied to value back in 2015) but without the authorities to do so provided by the ACA he's going to find that impossible. So he better hope that dumb ruling doesn't stand.

The provisions in the IPPS rule implementing 2718(e) are there because of the ACA. There would still be an IPPS rule if the ACA went away. The rule would not, however, include much in the way of value-based reforms (since those are rooted in the ACA) and there wouldn't be transparency requirements around hospital charges (since that requirement become law via the ACA).

Does it surprise me that none of the ACA's opponents know what they've been tried to get thrown out? No. Does it disgust me? Yes.

So...since this thread is about the IPPS, all this stuff about Obamacare is just off-topic nonsense. Thanks for clearing that up.

Moving on...

 

[Greenbeard]

So...since this thread is about the IPPS, all this stuff about Obamacare is just off-topic nonsense.

The thread is about an Obamacare provision. Do you somehow still not get that?

 

[j-mac]

https://revcycleintelligence.com/ne...cerned-about-hospital-price-transparency-rule

Thanks for the article, only made me more angry!

F*** these healthcare providers that are "concerned" that they will now have to post just how bad they are taking advantage of the general public with their pricing....It is criminal to me what they, and the insurance industry have been able to get away with over the years.

And if the Trump administration is working towards to put an end to this gouging then kudos to them, right?

 

[j-mac]

The thread is about an Obamacare provision. Do you somehow still not get that?

It was a provision that was, as far as I can tell was either never finalized, or was so weak as to not be effective. That seems to have been fixed with this bill....Isn't that a good thing?

 

[Greenbeard]

It was a provision that was, as far as I can tell was either never finalized, or was so weak as to not be effective. That seems to have been fixed with this bill....Isn't that a good thing?

The bad thing is the ongoing efforts to repeal provisions like this or, failing that, get it thrown out by the courts.

 

[Airyaman]

Thanks for the article, only made me more angry!

F*** these healthcare providers that are "concerned" that they will now have to post just how bad they are taking advantage of the general public with their pricing....It is criminal to me what they, and the insurance industry have been able to get away with over the years.

And if the Trump administration is working towards to put an end to this gouging then kudos to them, right?

Eh, no. They are concerned that when they see $X dollars for a procedure at their facility and $Y for the same "procedure", that the patients won't understand that there may be several differences as to what goes with each procedure according to the chosen facility. As someone else said, it would be better if insurance providers said how much they would pay for a given procedure, because most providers have contracts with insurance companies as to what they will pay, and the provider accepts that as full payment.

 

[Mycroft]

The thread is about an Obamacare provision. Do you somehow still not get that?

No. It's not about an Obamacare provision. It's about an action by the HHS that goes into effect on Jan 1.

YOU want to make it about Obamacare.