| | | >> Would you classify the Heritage Foundation's opinion as shit or Shinola?
You're changing the subject. The question you posed was the same procedures at two different types of facilities.
If you do discuss the "cost" of the procedures (different from the "charge") at two different facilities, they should be roughly the same.
I'm glad to discuss these subjects with you but you need to understand the topic.
The "cost" that is added to the health care economy will not change substantially. If that simplifies it for you.
Even Heritage must pick its lens.
In a last ditch effort to explain this to you in a way you can understand it, here:
Let's say you get a very basic procedure at an physicians office (perhaps a basic I&D) and the charge is $100.
Then, you go to the ER and get one on the other hand and it is $700.
Did it "cost" more?
You would probably say, "Yes."
I would say, "The payment was more. But the overall cost would be similar."
How does that make sense, you say?
Because the $600 difference between the two is essentially overhead. Overhead which is going to be paid by the public under either scenario. If the I&D at the ER is not performed, that $600 overhead cost is STILL adding cost to the overall health care economy and the public is STILL going to pay it. Hence, there is no material difference between the costs.
The exception, which I pointed out originally, was when the ER is over capacity and that I&D increases the likelihood it will be necessary to add fixed cost capacity.
Now, if you don't understand this, I would recommend a remedial course in managerial accounting, healthcare economics, or whatever. |
|
