Why An MRI Costs More In The US?

But shouldn't free market forces create competition, so that when you have a heart attack, you can shop for the best ambulance and the best hospital?

 

Shhh. Don't mention Germany. I think that's the system that the current US administration would really like to copy.

As an ex-pat in the USA I pay $81 per week through the agency I contract with.

I was writing a long post about the problems with the US system but it boils down to this: it works well for people in good jobs with good health insurance; then there's everybody else.

 

You know something I was actually trying to get through this thread without resorting to snide remarks with you.

 

Considering your first remark was snide, you should really seek help.

 

Oops my mistake and apologies.

 

They do but you're mistaking a commodity with a service type business which generally conducts their business by the free market bid system.

 

Spain and Italy are and always have been notoriously mismanaged countries. Even when Spain was extracting mountains of gold and silver from the Americas, it was a financial basket case.

But as was mentioned above, Germany, Australia, and Canada have thriving economies and have national health care. The US is the only industrialized nation in the world that does not. We are the only country that believes poor people have no right to routine medical care, and can get emergency care only in overcrowded, overworked facilities where people can die in the waiting room because there's not enough staff and equipment to handle them.

And we are the only industrial country in the world that puts such a low value on public health that wackaloons are permitted to refuse vaccination against highly-communicable diseases.

Same stuff. And at present still made by the same company. Different label and lower price on the same pill. I requested atorvastatin as soon as it became available. I also use (and have for years) generic levothyroxin in place of Synthroid. Unfortunately, Niaspan is not available as a generic.

 

health care insurance premiums are rising dramatically every year.even for people who are covered, the $#!T is going to hit the fan sooner or later and we will be forced into national health care. like oil, it's only a matter of time.

 

In a nutshell, the patient is removed from monitoring and controlling costs. They have been replaced by either insurance companies or the US government as being the financial administrators of what medical services and drugs are paid for.

As long as the Democratic approach is to make the government the ultimate paymaster and the Republican approach is to allow insurance companies to be the ultimate paymaster, we are pretty much guaranteed to have spiraling costs.

 

More advanced health care is expensive due to earlier adoption.
Individual and medical company profit motives put upward pressure on costs
High and rising cost of education forces up salaries.
Dysfunctional legal system adds to overheads.
Medicare/Medicaid underpayment increases charges to private patients.
Unpaid medical bills passed onto other customers.
Insurance company paradox: high cost insured items increase the market size so there is actually not as much incentive to lower costs as people might think.
Insurance hides costs.
Employer-based health insurance weakens pressure to lower costs.

Personally, I think it mainly rests on the high cost of education and employer-based health insurance. If you banned employer-based health insurance the market would be much better shape.

The overall rise of health-care costs is another matter entirely.

As FL_Prius_Driver notes, there's dogmatic paralysis.

I support the German health-care model but more firmly support universal healthcare, which implies compulsory health insurance by whatever means.

But within the current US system of private insurance I'd ban employer-based health insurance: as FL_Prius_Driver notes you can't have an effective market-based system if the consumer doesn't have any power.

This is similar to the dysfunctional system that has allowed credit cards to dominate despite them being bad for both the vendor and consumer. (Sorry for the hijack).

 

What are you bidding on when the ambulance is taking you to the hospital?

 

We could. But our government can be it's own worst enemy. Starting with drugs: They require the companies pay for most, if not all of the clinical trials. Then they give the companies monopoly rights for many years. Then they allow the legal system unlimited awards for injuries, both real and perceived. Then they allow selection of brand names over generics with the corresponding higher costs.

After giving all those advantages to the companies, their negotiation position is very weak, but not zero.

Likewise, for procedures, the government decided all payments would strictly be on the quantity of procedures provided, not on the quality. Horrible doctor or Super Doctor, same procedure-same government fee. You can figure out where that incentive leads. It rewards very specialized procedures and punishes family practitioners. Hence, for just about anything involved medically, you see an army of doctors, not just one. Starting with the family practitioner who must see hundreds of patients a week to sustain a living.

 

The invention is now old, but that's like equating all computers (from smartphones to supercomputers) as being the same. There are differences in resolving power, hardware for processing entire 3D volumes, and less intimidating form factors. Those are the main factors in hospitals deciding on a new MRI: there's also factors on the price of the scan itself. From what kind of specialists are used in assessing and recording data, to whether there needs to be contrast agents in the scan itself.

Personally, I think hospitals have been a bit too overzeolous in trying to market themselves with the latest and greatest MRI. There can be some need for having a more precise one, but do you need to try to compete with several? The greatest discrepancy seems to be service prices in general. Many private insurance companies go by the premise of charging the most and paying the least. This falls especially with preventative care. My father, a GP, would have occasions where some basic procedures cost his office more in lab fees then what the patient's insurer would pay.

 

So Americans pay more for health care and die sooner, yet the GOP has convinced America that if we use the single-payer system that works so well in all the other industrialized nations, costs will go up and we'll die sooner. They have it backwards.

 

That hybrid system works in virtually all Countries that have universal medical care, but it's often forgotten by those who wish to wish to discredit free healthcare.

Our NHS free system is pretty good. OK, it has its issues and isn't perfect but it's not bad as you can see from the examples I've given previously. Additional private health cover is also widely available and is a perk in many companies, but because it is not required as such because of the free system, then they have to work harder to be competitive and the prices are much less than in America.

Our Ambulances are free (though they can bill the guilty driver insurers in car accidents) and I don't just mean road going ambulances but air ambulances and helicopter ambulances. Good to know if you shatter your legs badly out mountain riding - no worry of a $6000 bill.

Those on here who wish to discredit free healthcare are welcome to do so. Those of us who use it know better.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy"]List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

Additional tidbits:
- there is a minimum income requirement to be allowed to buy private insurance and opt out of the state system.
- if you stay in Germany for any kind of extended period you have to contribute. So, for example if you study there (free higher education is available in 11 of the 16 Laender, incidentally, and yes, even to foreigners) you will have to pay towards healthcare coverage.