Hospitals proving themselves wrong about prices

June 6, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The reactions were telling last week after I wrote that Indianapolis hospitals charge twice as much money to the uninsured and privately insured patients than they do to the federal Medicare program.

A couple of readers calling themselves health care CFOs or health care controllers wrote back saying I had not fully accounted for all the nuances in health care prices, had not given hospitals credit for the services they are not paid for.

My response? Mea culpa.

I was not writing a 30-page case study about hospital pricing, but instead a 500-word blog post. So did I leave out some nuances? Of course.

Here are some of the ones that were mentioned: I did not take into consideration the charity care services hospitals provide. I did not consider that not every dollar billed to private patients is actually paid.

These are valid points. But they do not fully account for the 100 percent difference in prices between Medicare and private payers.

Furthermore, health care CFOs, of all people, ought to know that hospitals themselves are in the process, right now, of undermining those arguments.

Here are a couple of pieces of evidence for that:

Earlier this year, the Indiana University Health hospital system cut its prices for its imaging services. IU Health made the change in response to feedback from its customers, according to spokeswoman Lauren Cislak.

Some of that feedback came from large employers beginning to use a new software tool from San Francisco-based Castlight Health. Castlight’s software provides comparable prices based on the insurance discounts relevant for each employer and its workers.

So far in Indiana, such mammoth employers as Purdue University, Cummins Inc. and the state of Indiana are using Castlight. And many other large employers are set to roll it out soon.

“I believe that, as an industry, we have been inefficient,” said IU Health CEO Dan Evans in an April interview, where he revealed that IU Health is working to cut out as much as $1.2 billion—or 25 percent of annual expenses—over the next four years.

And that brings me to my second piece of evidence that hospitals have been charging higher prices than they needed to—because they could. In fact, as I wrote two months ago, nearly all hospitals in Indianapolis and around the country are working to cut their expenses 15 percent to 20 percent.

It has become a mantra at hospitals across the country that they are going to reduce expenses to the point that payments from the federal Medicare program are, in fact, profitable for the hospitals.

“You frequently hear the phrase, ‘We have to be able to make money on Medicare,’” said Kevin Holloran, a hospital credit analyst at Standard & Poor’s.

Why didn’t hospitals do this before? Well, as in most businesses, they tended to focus more on growing revenue than on cutting expenses—until they were absolutely forced to do so.

Will there be consequences from these cuts? Absolutely. People will lose their jobs. Some experts are warning that there will be longer waits for health care or that there will be other access issues. Some are warning that life-saving and life-improving innovations will be slow to come to market, or perhaps never will.

Does this vindicate the Medicare system of price controls, where bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., try to control something like 800,000 prices each year? That’s a question where political philosophy comes in in a much bigger way, with single-payer advocates saying yes and consumer choice and free marketeers saying no.

Either way, I don’t think hospitals’ recent efficiency and price-lowering kick validates Medicare’s price control system.

Instead, I think it’s merely a sign that hospitals have been maximizing revenue from the customers that would bear the costs—employers and private-paying individuals—and were defending those high prices with arguments that, while valid, did not explain the entire difference between their prices to private consumers and to Medicare consumers.

“It proves that hospitals have been maximizing revenue,” said Alex Slabosky, former CEO of M-Plan HMO and former president of IU Health Plans.

Some, like Slabosky, consider that wrong of the Indianapolis-area hospitals, since they are all not-for-profits that receive tax advantages for serving the public good.

I simply think that all people and institutions run by people will always look to serve their own interests. I find it hard to criticize someone for looking to make money while also doing a great job taking care of me and my family. The one helps them do the other, in my view.

I just think they need to acknowledge that they’re doing it—and not cry foul when others point it out.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Agree
    Controlling cost instead of increasing revenue. It really seems like you keep pointing this pointing this same advice to the Federal government. They are being asked to reduce a much smaller percentage than healthcare and are squealing much more about the negitive consequences.
  • Supurb Article
    Timely and factual article on a subject that hits everyone, even more than utilities and gasoline prices! Reminds me of a personal experience five years ago. Delivering meals to shut-ins I was bitten by a small dog. Lots of blood but no stitches required, only a tetanus shot, some salve and bandaging. Nonetheless the young doctor at Community insisted on doing an X-ray of my hand and more. They knew I was covered by Workmen's Comp. Total cost? Only $1600 lol. Have always wondered what the bill would have been had I not been covered! Salves, gauze and tape are indeed very expensive!
  • Feedback to Mr. Wall
    The problem in making an assessment that is small in overall narrative comment is that it comes across as somewhat superficial. Probably good for Mr. Wall to gain insight from the hospital directly via an interview. His perspective seemed to lack a lot of insight regarding the overall hospital health delivery.
  • Bring to light!
    I think it very important to discuss how much the hospitals charge. This is the cost of care and this has a direct impact on what we pay for health insurance premiums. In the last couple of years tools have been made available to insured to help them research costs. People are always shocked to find out the price deference.
    • Insurance Companies
      How about the insurance companies who post record profits and have stakeholders. I think they should be non-profit whereby investing their profits back into the community to which their members belong. They could also reduce the premiums they charge to employers/members.

    Post a comment to this blog

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT