What’s the incentive for the plan administrator to set such things up, when it’s simpler to just increase premium / deductibles / stop-loss provisions (especially if none of the competitors are doing it)?
That’s great for folks who have the good fortune to take advantage of such options (and I’m writing this from a medical waiting room after having driven an hour for my wife to see a specialist that was recommended)… but not everyone has that luxury, and the folks in need of complex medical care are more likely to not have that flexibility.
For example, my mother-in-law is currently in the second-best (of two) hospital in her region, because no one in that household is currently able to drive, transportation options were limited, and…I’m not certain whether she deemed the cost of a longer ambulance ride to be prohibitive, or the ambulance crew was unwilling to go the extra distance.
So the hospital receives $3M, I assume that includes the drug, so net out $1M that goes to the manufacturer. The hospital is left with $2M, to administer a drug, maybe there is an inpatient stay.
Something feels off. Either the hospital is giving additional money to the manufacturer, or the guy who owns part of the drug company is a doctor who is the one administering the drug, right?
I used to work in oncology, big drug bills. Injectable or infused drugs were paid at Average Sale Price plus 6% (4.3% when sequestration came out). The 6% was for administration of the drug, which seems reasonable if the drug is $500.
At current prices it makes no sense, imo. The median medical oncologist makes like $700k or $800k, fully two thirds of that is drug margin.
The right thing to do is pay something like ASP plus $200 or whatever and call it a day.
Yes, in the scenario described $2M net to the hosp.
the required IP stay is a separate charge. i don’t believe the hosp/docs are kicking extra cash back to the manufacturer or i have not seen that be stated/alleged.
and i think this is where most folks land based on the info shared. i’ve not heard it described any other way
Have been watching the CBC coverage so don’t know if US media are blaming anyone yet. The interview with the Toronto Airport CEO was good as he she focused on how well the crew and emergency services responded resulting in no deaths. She also praised the safety framework for such incidents. (Fortunately this didn’t happen at a US airport as Trump would have already called the CEO a DEI hire and thus responsible for the crash).
There has been much praise for how well the aircraft was built. It didn’t break up or explode: even the seats are intact because of FAA regulations on their construction. In the absence of such rules there would have been massive injuries when the seats broke loose.
Video out earlier on the crash. Looks like the plane landed a bit hard and the right landing gear collapsed. The plane skidded a bit and rolled over to the right after the wing separated.
Lots of fire for a few seconds, assume from what was left in the wing.
! It’s upside down!!!
