andym
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-01-09 02:01 PM
Original message |
A useful addendum to current efforts: Tie premiums to procedural cost |
|
Edited on Sat Aug-01-09 02:06 PM by andym
There is one improvement to the current legislation that would make a big difference in how cost effective the reforms will turn out:
Tax all revenue above some reasonable limit, say 5%, of the cost of all procedures that are paid for. Even better, instead of taxing, require premiums by regulation to be no higher than 5% overhead over the averaged total cost of the procedures that the company pays in aggregate. No kickbacks to health care providers allowed. This would help cut into the 30% or more overhead that is apparently now in place.
Of course, this assumes that a bill includes language barring no one from receiving health insurance. And requires a bill in which health care risk for an individual is not allowed to be considered in pricing a policy (which is already true today in many states for group policies) That will cut costs and chase some inefficient (greedy) for-profit insurers from the business.
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-01-09 02:08 PM
Response to Original message |
1. That would be almost impossible to administer. Cost of |
|
procedures vary a lot between providers. Where they're located, what new equipment they buyHow many people they employ. Wether they do the various tests in house or send it out.
|
yellowdogintexas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-01-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. this is already covered in the way Medicare reimbursments are |
|
calculated, which is with an area prevailing average of same specialty/same area practitioners
|
andym
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-01-09 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Yes, they could use the prevailing fees calculation done for Medicare. nt. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:49 PM
Response to Original message |