We're sorry, but we cannot find the page you requested. Our Advanced Search page can assist in helping you find the article or content you are attempting to locate.

Thank You!

Sponsored by

Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Look for Buckingham to vacate the brick alley next to 924. Corner Bakery is looking at space near Meridian and Ohio.

  2. Looking forward to the end of the this release the trolls

  3. The remarkable growth in medical costs falls to both the hospitals, who have had no historic incentive to compete and achieve operational efficiency, and the patients that have no incentive to take ownership in their own health. Nowhere else in the economy is there such a disparity. For example, when you check into IU North, they make you sign a contract stating that you accept all of their pricing and will not dispute it. I suppose that can happen when you have a lawyer that is CEO of the health system. But the fact that IU puts that into their contract means that they tacitly admit that they are billing for charges without any measure of accountability. Despite advances in efficacy of many treatments and competitive markets at the product level, costs still increase at the hands of service providers. On the patient side, the outcomes are not any better. If one studies inpatient medical costs for Medicaid patients versus private payers, you will oftentimes find that private payer charges are 25% lower. The reason? Private payers are paying for their own healthcare costs out of pocket and the link between their own health and the money out of pocket for them is acute. Back to the sepsis example: in 2012, the private payer incurred charges for sepsis treatment of $66,609 per patient. The charges for Medicaid patients? $86,344. This trend is rampant across many ICD-9 codes in the inpatient data. Check out and browse the statistics. The results are quite sobering and a sad indictment on the U.S. approach to personal health. While the walls are falling quickly around the hospital's status quo, until market forces change personal behavior, the patient side of this equation will likely deteriorate further.

  4. My issue isn't with saving a historic is with spending tax dollars to move said building so the current owner can profit by selling the land that it currently resides without having to spend that profit in relocating the building.

  5. The Current gives readers what they want. Kelly & Greenberg are good people & smart business people.