Does Regulation Lower Costs? A Personal Experience
For many years I have struggled to breathe through my nose, and decided to do something about it, given that the condition helps cause sleep apnea. The experience of having this condition “fixed” has taught me both about the wonders of modern medical care as well as the idiocy of the medical/government bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the latter slowly is destroying the former.
I won’t describe the procedure, except to say that the local anesthetic was effective, and I have a high pain tolerance. Furthermore, I was surprised that this invasive operation resulted in quick results, making me the beneficiary of something that was medically impossible not long ago.
The procedure itself was good, but the administration of the operation was lacking because it was much more costly than it needed to be. The activity took place in the same-day surgery center at our community’s brand-new hospital, and while the center was impressive, it was not medically necessary for me to be there.
The doctor and I often discuss the economics of medicine and the government policies that are driving the system into ruin, and our encounter that week provided more opportunity for conversation. After he finished and I was leaving, he dropped a small bombshell: He told me that he just as easily and efficiently could have performed this small operation in his office for $250, much less than what my insurance company will be paying for the same procedure.
Obviously, someone will wonder why an insurance company would demand practices that raise its costs. Insurance companies, after all, are private firms that allegedly are trying to make a profit, and why they would impose unnecessary costs on themselves should be a mystery.
It is not hard to solve this paradox, however. The insurance process we have today would not exist in a free market for medical care. Just because a firm providing a service is a profit-seeking corporation does not mean it is engaged in free enterprise.
First and most important, the present system came about because of a quirk in tax policy during World War II. Because of government wage and price controls, companies could not compete for workers by offering better wages, but they could offer benefits such as “health insurance,” a relatively new product that was not taxed as income. Thus health insurance became employer-based, a situation that became institutionalized in the postwar years.
Second, while early insurance tended to provide protection against catastrophic events, the entire apparatus took another turn after Congress enacted Medicare in 1965. This tax-funded plan paid a large percentage of medical costs for senior citizens, and it poured a lot of new money into the medical system. Although doctors at first were leery of this program, they found soon that if they billed it, the government would pay.
At the same time, American labor unions began to demand greater pension and medical benefits, and U.S. companies gave in, creating a huge time bomb that fully exploded when General Motors and Chrysler went bankrupt earlier this year (only to be bailed out by taxpayers who now have alleged ownership of these white elephants). At the time of their bankruptcies, the largest single cost these companies faced was the medical bills of union employees.
What does that have to do with the unnecessary costs for my own operation? Over the years, as the federal and state governments have increased their intrusions into health care, driving up costs, health insurers have become little more than regulated utilities that operate just like other risk-averse bureaucracies, and regulated bureaucracies tend to demand medical procedures that supposedly are safe. Hang the costs.
I must admit that I was tempted to pay the $250 and get the job done in the doctor’s office, as a matter of principle. Unfortunately, after having paid monthly premiums well in excess of that amount, the incentive was for me to get the higher-cost procedure, since I was not paying directly for it. Welcome to “cost containment,” government style.










Comment by Bogart on 9 December 2009:
Note the real issue. The doctor told you the procedure would cost $250 AFTER the procedure. Had this and all doctors published cash prices prior to the procedure then they would not need insured patients as these folks could easily pay out of pocket giving them the option to not pay something like my insurance plant at $7000 per year.
But government stops this as our benefactors have doctors sign a contract that they will charge Medi-non-care the minimum amount. So to get around this the doctor has to notify the patients after the procedure.
Comment by George Schwappach on 9 December 2009:
I have a positive, but similar experience. Back in 1995, I switched my family to a personal, high deductible catastrophic policy, plus a HSA (Medical Savings Account back then). This policy DID NOT include uneventful maternity, but my wife and I were not done with building the family. While she was carrying our 3rd son, I shopped the two community hospitals, and got quotes from each for the cost of delivery (use of the facilities, nurses, etc, but not the OB – for this, we negotiated a trade of services) and a 24 stay.
The hospital nearest my home had the lowest price; $350! I had to pay this in advance, but I’ll bet it is more than they received from Medicaid at that time. The bonus, when my wife and I spent the night after the birth, we were treated to Prime Rib dinners, which was a promotional special of the Woman’s Delivery center.
For our last son, born in 2002, we contracted with a midwife. That was $785 for full care and delivery, and was the most spectacular delivery of the 6 children I have been a part of. My wife sat on my knees while I sat on the edge of the bed; Wow! Just 30 minuets after the birth, little Eddie was in OUR bed with his 4 brothers.
So my experience with medical choice has been very positive. If all insurance stopped covering the normal delivery of children, I’ll bet the costs would go way down, and care would improve.
Pingback by Does Regulation Lower Costs? « thak’s cool links on 9 December 2009:
[...] The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty » Does Regulation Lower Costs? A Personal Experience. [...]
Comment by bob on 10 December 2009:
don’t forget the regulations against advertising medical prices or “discriminating prices” (aka offering discounts to the financially strapped).
also don’t forget the regulations against insurance being bought across state lines or otherwise restricted.
Comment by Kasey on 12 December 2009:
While we are remembering… Dont forget that lawyers contributed to our problems by bringing frivolous lawsuits against doctors and companies, who now have to pay astronomical fees to protect themsevles.
Pingback by Can We Afford to Avoid the Truth? : The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 16 December 2009:
[...] after reading an editorial in Saturday’s New York Times, I decided to continue the subject of my last column on medical costs. The editorial not only contains more nonsense from the “Newspaper of Record,” [...]