Burdizzo said:
G Martin 87 said:
Burdizzo said:
I think they have a choice. They just need a different business model. I work on projects all the time where I am a sole source provider leading a team of professionals, some whom work for my company and others who are subcontractors with different Tax-ID. We invoice our clients once a month, and they only see one invoice . That extra management adds overhead, but if I shotgunned invoices like that to my clients they would go find someone else. They certainly don't seemed to be billing separately to keep costs down
Shrugs. I'm not knowledgeable about the billing challenges in your industry, and so I would defer to your opinion on why those things happen a certain way in your industry.
Not disputing anything you said. My gripe usually centers on how our use of insurance distorts a market.
Phil Gramm used to say, "If I bought groceries they way I buy healthcare, I would eat differently, and so would my dog."
And Phil Gramm wasn't wrong. But Phil Gramm didn't have a clue why healthcare administration and reimbursement is structured the way it is, what led to it being that way, or what the inherent barriers are to devising a better business model, as you put it. Insurance is only one factor of many that distorts the market and increases the hassle for everyone. That's a very deep and dark rabbit hole, guarded by a vast army of stakeholders who benefit monetarily from having a complicated delivery system. Those stakeholders include providers, consultants, attorneys, policymakers, software developers, medical supply manufacturers, the AMA, accrediting bodies, state boards of insurance, blah, blah, etc, etc. There is a lot of money to be made operating in the crevices of the US healthcare system.
Anyway, yes, patients want easy-to-understand, predictable, accurate, combined billing that makes sense. Absolutely a worthy goal. What I'm trying to say is that the reason it can't happen has nothing to do with lazy or mistake-prone provider staff.