- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 20,231
- Reaction score
- 21,633
- Location
- Cambridge, MA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
In a move meant to keep health care costs from growing faster than wages, Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak signed an executive order on Wednesday in Carson City.
The executive order sets a benchmark — 3.19% — for how much the cost of health care services can grow in 2022. . .
A number of state agencies have been tasked with working together to monitor costs to consumers and see that insurers and health care providers meet the goal.
Because price fixing services below market value has a great track record as a policy choice.Another state seems to be trying to pursue something sort of like the Massachusetts model, not long after the last one, New Jersey, set off down the path a few weeks ago (NJ hospitals, insurers join state effort to curb rising health care costs). Nevada's governor is setting statewide targets for growth in health spending costs for the next several years.
But like New Jersey, Nevada doesn't seem to be setting up the infrastructure--including a legislative mandate--to actually enable the state to meet its goal. New Jersey at least had apparent buy-in from key stakeholders like hospitals and insurers. It's not clear if Nevada has that.
But setting a goal is at least a start.
Sisolak issues executive order to put limits on growing health care costs
But setting a goal is at least a start.
Because price fixing services below market value has a great track record as a policy choice.
Well it depends on well. If you want to use outdated equipment and medications for decades to create stability for prices then you can do that.If insurers (ie single payers) are setting the price, I expect it to work quite well. Government does not need to set individual prices for each product or service.
Because the California state government is well known for its ability to manage things efficiently and at cost. As anyone who pays California taxes knows the state is an expert at providing great quality public services with no waste and low costs. I hear they reguralily even lower taxes because they know paying taxes is a burden and they look for innovative ways to cut costsCalifornia's state house also just introduced a "Cal-Care" bill designed to be a road map to California universal healthcare...the second time
this has been attempted in the last five years.
Hopefully THIS time it won't be the HOT MESS introduced five years ago by the California Nurses Association, and it might have a chance at passage.
Well it depends on well. If you want to use outdated equipment and medications for decades to create stability for prices then you can do that.
If we used the medical technology as available in the 1950s then I’m sure healt care would be extremely cheap
Well it might matter if you need specialized care."Outdated" by two or three years doesn't matter.
Hyperbole as expected.
And anyway, it wouldn't, due to staff costs.
Because price fixing services below market value has a great track record as a policy choice.
To the extent that public transparency and scrutiny influences the behavior of key institutions in the health sector, so much the better. No "price fixing" is happening here, whatever "market value" is supposed to mean in this context.a. Monitor health care spending growth across all public and private payers and populations in Nevada and report at least annually to the Governor on such growth;
b. Engage relevant parties, including insurers, providers, and community partners, to develop strategies to help meet the Target that are data-based and practicable;
c. Ensure that consumers and businesses purchasing health insurance share in the positive impact of the Target and related work.
d. Report annually during the fourth quarter on performance relative to the Target during the prior calendar year at:
i. State, health insurance market (e.g., commercial, Medicaid, .Medicare, Medicare Advantage) and individual payer levels; and,ii. Accountable care organization (ACO) level for entities of a sufficient size, using clinical risk adjustment methodologies;e. No later than October 1, 2026 the PPC shall make a recommendation to the Governor regarding the appropriate cost growth benchmarks for the year 2027 and beyond.
That was the implication of suggesting the lack of a legislative mandate, policy infrastructure, or industry buy-in would be a problem, yes.It will do nothing, and I'm pretty sure you already know that.
Well it depends on well. If you want to use outdated equipment and medications for decades to create stability for prices then you can do that.
If we used the medical technology as available in the 1950s then I’m sure healt care would be extremely cheap
That is how MediCare/MedicAid has always worked. The federal government pays pennies on the dollar for medical services rendered, and people have to wonder why doctors refuse to see MediCare/MedicAid patients?Because price fixing services below market value has a great track record as a policy choice.
Healthcare costs would be lower too if there wasn't a 'won the lottery' attitude toward medical malpractice claims. Malpractice insurance in the US can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on specialty and location, and that's just for surgeons. Hospitals add their own insurance cost to the bill.Well it might matter if you need specialized care.
It’s not hyperbole at all. Healthcare costs would be very low if innovation never occurred
That’s the way it is with everything in America. Cities routinely pay the families of scumbags killed in encounters with the police for instance. If you have an anti-social scumbag relative somewhere in America they can be your lottery ticket if they’re shot trying to stab someone.Healthcare costs would be lower too if there wasn't a 'won the lottery' attitude toward medical malpractice claims. Malpractice insurance in the US can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on specialty and location, and that's just for surgeons. Hospitals add their own insurance cost to the bill.
They would also be lower if we removed the insurance companies from the equation.Healthcare costs would be lower too if there wasn't a 'won the lottery' attitude toward medical malpractice claims. Malpractice insurance in the US can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on specialty and location, and that's just for surgeons. Hospitals add their own insurance cost to the bill.
And lawyers.They would also be lower if we removed the insurance companies from the equation.
Medical malpractice and preventable medical mistakes are the third leading cause of death in the US, killing far more Americans every year than COVID ever will.Healthcare costs would be lower too if there wasn't a 'won the lottery' attitude toward medical malpractice claims. Malpractice insurance in the US can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on specialty and location, and that's just for surgeons. Hospitals add their own insurance cost to the bill.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?