Interesting study reported in the NY Times about the relationship between cost and quality:
In Health Care, Cost Isn’t Proof of High Quality – New York Times
the Pennsylvania findings support a growing national consensus that as consumers, insurers and employers pay more for care, they are not necessarily getting better care. Expensive medicine may, in fact, be poor medicine.“For most consumers, the fact that there is no connection between quality and cost is one of the dirty secrets of medicine,” said Peter V. Lee, the chief executive of the Pacific Business Group on Health, a California group of employers that provide health care coverage for workers.
I wonder what implication this might have for advocates of market-based solutions to the problems in US health care delivery? It has long been known that health care is a prime example of market failure in economics and disparities in information between buyers and sellers of health services. I think it’s safe to assume that market advocates will seize on this as an example of why their approach is best. I think we’ll continue to see the same type of market failure until all consumers are as qualified as their doctors to determine the best course of treatment and venue for care. In other words, never.
Particularly when you see stuff like this from further along in the article:
Pennsylvania is the first state to make such information, normally closely guarded by the hospitals and the insurers, available to everyone — including patients who may never see their hospital bills or be aware of how their hospitals compare with others in the state.
You can’t have competition until there’s some rational basis for determining if a given provider is delivering value for the dollar.
