January 4, 2007
"Just Like an Airplane"
Here is an insight into private hospitals in China from the WSJ:
Hospital Caters to China's Wealthy and Poor
Tianjin, China- At the TEDA International Cardiovascular Hospital just outside Beijing, patients can choose from six levels of service.
At the lowest end, for about $6.70 a night, patients must share a small room with others. The biggest suite at the hospital, on the other hand, costs about $3,200 a night and occupies half the floor of a building. It offers satellite television, an indoor garden, a conference room, two bedrooms, a massage chair and a private gym.
"It's just like an airplane," says Liu Xiaocheng, the hospital's president. "In the front of the plane, they have the first class. In the middle, business class. At the end they have the economy class. But they're all going to the same destination. It's the market!"
Posted by Peter Mork at 9:38 AM | Comments | TrackBack
April 30, 2005
Health care at 1/10th the price is only 20 hours away
A luxurious health care alternative for some 40 million uninsured Americans lies in the hospitals of faraway countries.
In case you missed it, 60 Minutes had a fascinating segment last week on private hospitals catering to foreigners in both Thailand and India. These places look more like luxury hotels than hospitals, employ doctors that have practiced at top medical institutions in the U.S, and do it all at a fraction of the cost.
Could this be a solution to out of control health care costs? I think it has a lot of promise. Head over and watch the free segment, or give the whole article a read if you have the time.
Posted by Peter Mork at 5:55 PM | Comments | TrackBack
December 3, 2004
NPR on HSAs
Yesterday morning National Public Radio had a segment on Heath Savings Accounts (HSAs). Despite a lead in which was along the lines of "HSAs: Some of the problems with the newest trend in health care", they did a good job of stressing that A) the new accounts are surprisingly popular and B) if customers start paying for their health care themselves, instead of through 3rd party payers, this will be the first step in controlling costs as people will start asking "How much am I paying for this?" and start shopping around.
Multiple times though, negative aspects of the HSAs were introduced by saying "consumer advocates" had concerns about the new accounts. By definition, consumer advocates should be concerned with the consumer. It was disappointing then that the report didn't mention what might be their most attractive feature to those who will be selecting the new plans.
What is that feature? Ownership.
Before the advent of 401(k)s and IRA accounts, people would often think twice about changing jobs, as this meant giving up many of the retirement benefits they had earned at their present company. The amount you received for retirement was largely determined by how long you had worked at the firm combined with your last year of salary. Changing jobs meant gaving up these benefits, so many would stick it out at jobs they didn't want simply to retain their retirement benefits. But once 401(k)s and IRAs came along, this all changed. Today if you want to change jobs and have a 401(k) you can bring all your benefits with you. You don't start over as you own your retirement account. This has led to a dynamic job market where employees are less dependent on their employers.
A similar situation has now developed on the health care front. One of the biggest concerns about leaving a job nowadays is losing your health care insurance whose cost is spiraling out of control. Not only do HSAs help control these costs, as mentioned above, but your health care coverage now becomes portable. You can transfer this account from job to job and use your money on health care costs while looking for employment if necessary. Obviously a plus for the consumer.
Too bad "consumer advocates" often seem to focus on the negatives of new products. Learning about the benefits is sometimes the most useful aspect.
Posted by Peter Mork at 5:40 PM | Comments | TrackBack
October 18, 2004
Cheap Drugs from Canada Don't Grow on Trees
The Financial Times has an article regarding drug re-importation from Canada. The article points out that several Canadian online pharmacies will not be accepting bulk orders from U.S. states and municipalities. The reason? They don't have enough medicine to go around:
But growing concern in Canada that growing exports to the US could lead to rising prices and shortages north of the border has prompted the Canadian International Pharmacy Association (Cipa), whose members include several of the biggest internet and mail-order drugstores, to act. “We don't want to give Americans the impression that we have unlimited supply for them to tap into on a commercial basis,” said David Mackay, the association's executive director. Americans, he added, “can't get everything from Canada. We can't be your complete drugstore”.
This point was predicted months ago by Sally Pipes at the Pacific Research Institute. At a debate that featured Dr. Milton Friedman, Congressman Gil Gutknecht, Don McCanne, and James Glassman, Pipes made this exact point:
They have 31 million people in Canada, and here in the US we have almost 300 million people. When Governor Blegoyavitch in Illinois is talking about importing all of the drugs for his state employees and his Medicaid recipients, he's talking about $2 billion worth of imported drugs. Now, as I mentioned, the Canadian industry is $8 billion. So a quarter of the Canadian drugs would be being re-exported to the United States, which I think just is not feasible.
Read the whole debate if you have a chance. It raise a host of other issues with respect to drug re-importation from both sides of the matter.