Originally posted by normbenign
The only effective means of bring about price reductions is consumer pressure based on competition between providers.
The idea that the ACA, or any state policy can save money in the long run is just pixie dust. The only effective means of bring about price reductions is consumer pressure based on competition between providers.
Any temporary rebates, as well as the waivers tend to be political favors more than real savings.
If when the IBM PC first was introduced, ...[text shortened]... same as they cost back then. Instead the competitive market, gives us much more for much less.
Yeah, that’s worked.
“The United States spends two-and-a-half times more than the OECD average health expenditure per person (Chart 1). … Overall, the evidence suggests that prices for health services and goods are substantially higher in the United States than elsewhere. This is an important cause of higher health spending in the United States.
… [O]verall the picture about whether the US spends more than other countries because its system does more than other countries is mixed. It does more of some activities, but less of others. Overall, it seems that high prices are probably a more important cause of high spending than high provision of services”
“The United States spent 8233 USD on health per capita in 2010, two-and-a-half times more than the OECD average of 3268 USD (adjusted for purchasing power parity).
“In most countries, health spending is largely financed out of taxes or social security contributions, with private insurance or ‘out-of-pocket’ payments playing a significant but secondary role. The United States which, together with Mexico and Chile, are the only OECD countries where less than 50% of health spending is publicly financed. The public share of health expenditure in the United States was 48.2% in 2010, much lower than the OECD average of 72.2%.
However, the overall level of health spending in the United States is so high that public (i.e. government) spending on health per capita is still greater than in all other OECD countries, except Norway and the Netherlands. Public spending on health in the United States has been growing more rapidly than private spending since 1990, largely due to expansions in coverage.
—Though more data would be required, there is at least an implication that post-1990 “expansions in coverage”, while not diminishing the number of uninsured, have also not reduced pricing.
“Health spending is rising faster than incomes in most developed countries, which raises questions about how countries will pay for their future health care needs. The issue is particularly acute in the United States, which not only spends much more per capita on health care, but also has had one of the highest spending growth rates. Both public and private health expenditures are growing at rates which outpace comparable countries. Despite this higher level of spending, the United States does not achieve better outcomes on many important health measures.”
Though this is not the question in the OP—
“Last year, both the Congressional Budget Office and Standard & Poor's reported that the growth of costs in Medicare has slowed significantly, much more slowly that the growth of costs for private care. … Despite competition and choice in the private insurance system, Medicare spending has grown more slowly than private insurance premiums for comparable coverage for more than 30 years.
See also: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/