Total Cost of Her Covid-19 Treatment: $34,927.43

https://time.com/5806312/coronavirus-treatment-cost/

by JeanMarcS • 6 years ago

81 105 6 years ago

time.com

sumofi2• 6 years ago

Not having health insurance is not an excuse.

In Germany you are required by law to have it.

tetromino_• 6 years ago

In Germany, does your health insurance cost >$600 per month for 1 person if your employer or government doesn't subsidize it (for example, if you are self-employed and earning more than minimum wage from it)?

Because that's the case in the US.

NicoJuicy• 6 years ago

7,4 € per month for everyone ( Belgium)

https://www.cm.be/lid-worden/cm-bijdrage

Eg. Going to a doctor for a blood check costs 1€, 14€ is paid by the insurer

t0mas883• 6 years ago

Similar to Germany here: Insurance costs around € 100 per month per adult, kids under 18 are free. If you have a low income (below roughly 40k per year) you effectively pay less all the way down to zero (if your income is below about 14k per year), because the government pays part of your premium for you.

bcrosby95• 6 years ago

Yeah, I have 3 kids, and my employer pays $3k/month for our health insurance.

martin_a3• 6 years ago

Nah, it doesn't.

There are upper limits for the national health insurance which is based on a fixed percentage of your monthly income. I've passed that border this year (earning around 66 k€/year) and from now on, I will not have to pay more, so my procentual share actually goes down from now on.

If I'd marry now, my wife and any children would also be covered by my percentage, it's called "family insurance". Pretty fair after all. (Some limitations apply, but if my wife would stop working, she would be covered through my insurance.)

redis_mlc2• 6 years ago

In the USA, acne and pregnancy are often disqualifying conditions. Services are often "out-of-network."

So it doesn't matter if you pay the pemiums or not - you get massive surprise bills.

dangus5• 6 years ago

I agree that the US health system is beyond fucked up, but the statements in this comment are dramatization and not accurate on their own without a ton of qualifiers and clarifying statements.

“Out of network” doesn’t mean your health insurance plan doesn’t pay for anything. It usually just changes coinsurance rate. Anyone who has a major expensive hospital event while insured will just hit their maximum annual out of pocket amount and that coinsurance rate won’t matter. That’s not a good thing but it also means that this comment is misleading, implying that being out of network means that the insured person just has to foot the bill and that their insurance company dips out.

The whole point of the insurance network is that your health insurance company is encouraging you to take your routine doctor’s visits and scheduled non-emergency procedures to a place where they negotiate.

And acne and pregnancy aren’t disqualifying. What are you even saying they’re disqualified for? That’s a vast exaggeration.

PragmaticPulp• 6 years ago

In the USA, acne and pregnancy are often disqualifying conditions.

This is not true. Premiums and coverage are only allowed to vary by age and location, not preexisting conditions.

morelisp2• 6 years ago

In Germany insurers are required by law to provide a minimum standard of coverage comparable to some of the best employer-provided healthcare in the US, insurance costs are heavily regulated and progressive, all employers are required to cover part of the cost, treatment price is heavily regulated, and no one can be rejected.

Absolutely none of this is true in the US.

dangus5• 6 years ago

This person is actually going to pay less than many people who are insured precisely because they’re uninsured.

Someone who is insured in the US is not allowed to negotiate.

This person can call the billing department and say “I can’t pay” and watch that bill plummet.

The 50% or so of Americans who get their healthcare from solid employers will exhaust their deductible but otherwise be generally fine. Then there’s another chunk of people on Medicaid and Medicare (government healthcare for elderly or poor) who would be fine in this situation.

The group of people in the United States who are screwed fall into a few categories: hourly workers who aren’t offered insurance or who are offered bad insurance from their employers, or business owners that have to self insure.

The ACA (Obamacare) attempted to help this situation by making health insurance mandatory and essentially going the route of Germany, but the mandate has been handicapped by numerous compromises in the bill itself, court rulings, and political turmoil. Also the high unregulated cost of drugs doesn’t help. It was not able to defeat the for-profit health insurance industry.

It’s wild to me that these political parties that claim to be pro-business don’t support separating healthcare coverage from employment. This is probably because of status-quo lobbying and a desire to keep people wage enslaved until retirement age.

vsareto2• 6 years ago

This person can call the billing department and say “I can’t pay” and watch that bill plummet.

I don't think it works this way that often. It might just get sent to a debt collector. They might give you a lower fee, but it won't be by that much.

ackbar03• 6 years ago

Wait so there isn't a Healthcare cost problem in America then? I don't live in US but if your uninsured and can just call, say I can't pay and pay much less or just have your insurer pay, it seems to be OK either way?

umvi3• 6 years ago

In Germany you are required by law to have it.

Obama basically made this happen, but the net result was that all of healthy young adults (the kind that least needed insurance) were forced to start paying for insurance to subsidize the unhealthy older adults (or pay a penalty).

So basically it was just a disguised tax targeting the young and healthy.

morelisp2• 6 years ago

the net result was that all of [low risk group] were forced to start paying for insurance to subsidize the [high risk group]

This is literally insurance.

Obama's plan failed because the public option was removed, employers and states refused to play along, and the Supreme Court undermined even the part you're complaining about. It was also not a great plan begin with, compared to European programs.

alkonaut2• 6 years ago

That’s like saying home insurance is a tax on people whose homes don’t burn down.

Isn’t the whole point of insurance to have everyone (sick and healthy) pay for the few?

martin_a3• 6 years ago

Well, you know, at some time in the future, those "healthy young adults" will be the "unhealthy older adults" and other young people will subsidize them then. That's pretty much how those social insurance systems work.

Maybe Americans are missing something to understand that, but it's not socialism or communism if you actually care about all people in the state, no matter how healthy or old they are.

Maybe Americans will understand one day.

what-the-grump2• 6 years ago

So you mean about half my taxes? SS and MC/MA/CHIP are roughly ~50% of federal expense? Why am I paying for grandpa sitting at home retiring and going to the doctor, he should get a job and pay for insurance keeping in mind that the majority of healthcare costs go to cover the aging population?

(What? Too much?)

verylittlemeat• 6 years ago

They tried that in the US with Obama's mandate. You had a choice of getting of getting health insurance or paying a penalty roughly the same cost as getting the insurance.

Trump getting rid of that mandate is one of the few things I'm grateful for in his presidency. No longer am I forced to pay for terrible insurance that had high copays and ridiculous deductibles.

I'm a low income worker and in exchange for almost 7% of my income I get 1 free doctor checkup a year and catastrophic coverage.

Sorry but $2000 cash is worth a lot more to me than an imaginary $100,000 hospital bill. Anything less than $2000 I spend on my health in a year is cash money in my pocket. Being "rational" about insurance is a luxury for wealthy. I would rather dispute the cost with my hospital and let the debt go to collections where I can reduce it even further.

what-the-grump2• 6 years ago

2.5 percent of your yearly household income or $695 per person ($347.50 per child under 18), whichever is greater.

Not sure how you get 2k?

surewhynat2• 6 years ago

Who in this entire thread is saying anything about Obamacare?

Look at what other countries are doing, do you hear them having "obamacare?"

Stop comparing your current medical system to worse systems. Start comparing it to other, better systems. Look at Canada and the UK.

You would pay EVEN LESS than you do now.

dangus5• 6 years ago

The bill is crazy, but this person won’t have to pay a 10th if it if they call the billing department.

Being uninsured is actually something of a blessing in the United States in this situation. If you have health insurance (often with bad coverage and high deductibles), you’ve agreed to waive your ability to negotiate and to pay whatever bill they’ve sent you.

Not so for the uninsured.

The whole billing system in the United States is beyond fucked up.

xiphias2• 6 years ago

To me this sounds like buying fake watches on the street in Thailand.

We both know that the price is to be negotiated, it's just a joke price.

But healthcare is not a joke even there.

Krokku2• 6 years ago

I dont get it. What is the price then? It depends on my negotiating skills and how many friends in high places i have?

Krokku2• 6 years ago

You could buy 0.018 Tomahawk missiles for that or treat 54 people for every Tomahawk missile fired.

All of the Tomahawk missiles fired since 2001 would have provided 119.000 people with free Corona treatment.

I am thinking that countries with free healthcare care more about keeping their own people healthy than dropping missiles and misery on other countries people.

CPLX• 6 years ago

That math only makes sense if you take the medical industry’s insane pricing model as gospel.

If you had a straightforward nationally run healthcare system the math would be way more favorable still.

lidHanteyk• 6 years ago

We know that a good rule of thumb in the USA is that health care costs are roughly twice what they ought to be. So just multiply by two: We could have treated around 238k people.

surewhynat2• 6 years ago

Other countries have price caps on their procedures. This makes sense to make the price for a procedure the same across hospitals. It's the same work. Marketing and Sales people should not be involved in the pricing structure of healing a broken leg.

tc313• 6 years ago

While your point is valid, it also illustrates how the U.S. subsidizes European entitlement programs by implicitly reducing those countries’ defense spending. If the U.S. were to cut back on defense, European countries would have to cut back on social welfare programs.

m_ke• 6 years ago

US destabilizing the middle east and causing a refugee crisis is not helping european social welfare programs.

tpetry• 6 years ago

Are you trying to say europeans have money to spend on an almost fair medical system because they are spending far less money on military because the USA spends enough to „protect“ the europeans? Because that would sounds like a joke. Europe is spending less money in military because its not entering so many wars or conflicts.

originalvichy• 6 years ago

You are saying that as if US has defenses in Europe for sheer good will and charity. My country of Finland is doing quite alright with military spending despite being a highly militarized country. There’s a difference between spending money on a defense force and spending money projecting force.

pinkfoot• 6 years ago

If the U.S. were to cut back on defense, European countries would have to cut back on social welfare programs.

Why? What if they are happy with their defence spending as it is? Its an unproven American trope that their defence would HAVE to increase.

Who, pray tell, is going to invade nuclear armed France and the UK?

captncraig• 6 years ago

There is no minimum number of missiles that must be produced no matter what. I think op was simply suggesting that fewer missiles total should be made across the board.

vidarh4• 6 years ago

If the US was to cut back on defense, European countries probably would cut back on defense too. A large part of European spending goes to keep the US happy, and to defend against the fallout of US wars.

It's a price we pay for favourable trade arrangements, not something Europe would maintain on its own.

Balgair• 6 years ago

"Each Javelin round costs $80,000, and the idea that it's fired by a guy who doesn't make that in a year at a guy who doesn't make that in a lifetime is somehow so outrageous it almost makes the war seem winnable."

- Sebastian Junger

moosey• 6 years ago

After this is over, the saddest possible outcome is if America returns to the same systems, having learned nothing. I don't expect it at all, but I've been more surprised in the past.

krapp2• 6 years ago

Unless there are millions of deaths in the US from this, a return to the status quo seems like the most likely scenario, as people will assume the scope and danger of the pandemic was overblown by the media all along.

zamalek• 6 years ago

Things would stay the same even with millions of deaths. "Socialism is nothing more than communism" and "communism is evil" are two concepts that are deeply embedded here.

twomoretime• 6 years ago

On the other hand, this is sort of a once in a lifetime (possibly once in an era) event and the reforms that would have made this easier to deal with aren't necessarily good for "regular" conditions...

Much like people's sudden views on UBI, especially those claiming that the upcoming stimulus is somehow proof that we need UBI or that it works - we're in a national emergency where hundreds of millions of livelihoods are threatened, any experiment we do now won't necessarily translate back to peacetime life.

alexhutcheson2• 6 years ago

The face values on medical bills in the US are like a bizarre joke - to a first approximation, no one ever pays them. Everyone with insurance gets insurer-negotiated "discounts" to around ~10% of the listed cost.

It's tougher for people without insurance - my understanding is that you can negotiate with the entity that sent you the bill to get significant reductions, but I don't have first-hand experience doing this. Even so, it sounds exhausting, since a single doctors visit will often result in bills from 2-3 separate entities (doctor, lab, radiologist, etc.), so you'd have to negotiate with each of them individually.

Havoc2• 6 years ago

Everyone with insurance gets insurer-negotiated "discounts" to around ~10% of the listed cost.

That whole setup is downright cruel & evil. Pretty much guarantees the most vulnerable get fk'd.

t0mas883• 6 years ago

Welcome to America, where the dream is that everyone can make it but reality is that large groups of people really can't.

afterburner• 6 years ago

But won't you be so proud when you sign up for a health plan! You can exclaim to everyone "well I did my due diligence and I signed up for a great plan! why didn't you??"

Meanwhile people in non-US countries are thinking "I don't have to think about any of this shit, at all."

_bxg1• 6 years ago

The entire system just assumes you have insurance. Everything outside of that is a totally unpredictable financial wasteland that cannot be compared to a real marketplace in any sense. Except obviously, in reality, many people don't have insurance. This is why the whole of it is so perverse and broken.

cj• 6 years ago

Lab test are particularly baffling to me. Except strangely, if buying lab tests without insurance (and without a doctor) using a company like https://www.directlabs.com you can get a panel of 100 tests for $150-300 (cholesterol panel, vitamins, thyroid, testosterone, etc - the whole works).

Yet when my doctor refers me to a lab for 1 or 2 specific tests, each individual test is billed at $150+ with a $60 copay paid to the lab.

With lab tests in particular, it’s sometimes cheaper to buy them without going through a doctor / without insurance.

themark• 6 years ago

Yes! I had a bill recently and thought the way that the list price of the services were represented was a cruel joke. It only adds to the confusion.

I feel like the insurance companies get blamed all the time but it seems like the problem is really the pricing that is set by providers.

Can’t we pass legislation governing these list prices?

Cyph0n2• 6 years ago

It depends on your deductible, though. If you’re on a HDHP, you could end up paying quite a bit more than 10% of the cost.

But the expectation is that you “negotiate”, which is one the dumbest things I’ve ever heard of. Why can’t my insurance company do that? I already have a ton of stuff to handle, and now I have to worry about negotiating my health bills? It’s a joke.

alexhutcheson2• 6 years ago

Even on an HDHP, the discount you get by going through insurance is significant. For a recent bill, my insurance website shows:

    Total amount billed: $771
    Plan discount:       $699
    Plan paid:             $0 
    You may owe:          $73

Because I haven't hit my deductible yet, the plan didn't pay for anything, but I got their negotiated pricing, so I'm only paying ~9.5% of the "billed rate".

But the expectation is that you “negotiate”, which is one the dumbest things I’ve ever heard of. Why can’t my insurance company do that?

If you have insurance, you're not expected to negotiate - the insurance company does that for you. That's the "plan discount" quoted above. You have to negotiate if you don't have insurance.

Not defending the system - I think billing is incomprehensible and hard to stay on top of. Just pointing out that you get significant benefits from being insured even if you never hit your deductible.

mgkimsal3• 6 years ago

my experience is similar, but never 10%. more like final bills end up being ~60% of original. We had a $3400 ER bill for a cut hand in November. Our 'final total' after 'negotiated pricing' was closer to $2400 - approx 30% reduction, not 90%. (fantastic savings for $10k/year premiums!)

rad_gruchalski• 6 years ago

Jesus. How much? My mother’s THR would cost roughly €5.5k, if she WASN’T insured.

jjoonathan3• 6 years ago

Is begging (negotiation without leverage) a remotely reliable move for those without insurance or is it just an excuse dangled by apologists when in fact the reality is that it usually results in a very small discount unless you get the story to go viral?

anewhope• 6 years ago

Yes, generally your leverage is that you can just not pay.

grecy2• 6 years ago

Everyone with insurance gets insurer-negotiated "discounts" to around ~10% of the listed cost.

Except when they get screwed.

Friends are middle-class teachers in a good neighbourhood outside LA. Have been so for 18 years, have good health insurance.

She has a baby (should be a joyous time), emergency C section required. The following morning the insurance company says $60k/day is too expensive, and they need to move hospitals this very moment or they won't pay a dime. No transport provided.

A day after a C section he had to drive his wife and <1 day old baby in his own car to another hospital.

That's downright barbaric.

vidarh4• 6 years ago

On one hand that's awful. On the other hand I can understand the insurance company balking at that price.

I'm in the UK. My ex considered private C section, and checked prices in the UK. We could have had it done by one of the top specialists in the country for ~12k GBP including the subsequent hospital stay.

In the end we chose not to, and our total costs were ~40 pounds/night for her to get a private room (NHS is allowed to charge for some extras) instead of sharing.

xyst• 6 years ago

It’s a shame that the only candidate that wants to tear down this ridiculous health system is getting the boot by the party he is aligned with.

The health system in the US is only accessible to those with money. It doesn’t have to be this way. I am not saying socialized healthcare will cure all ailments, but it would definitely be better than the current privatized system.

onetimemanytime• 6 years ago

"Treatment" I guess but if she was hooked to ICU machines it could have reached $1 million in no time.

lawn• 6 years ago

The amazing thing to me is she didn't get any advanced treatment. She didn't even had to spend the night there.

BooneJS• 6 years ago

IMO, this current crisis exposes a very strange dichotomy: government is essentially shutting down parts of the economy over shelter-in-place orders, but when people lose their jobs and (for some) employer health care, the government doesn’t deal with the repercussions.

Look, I think shelter in place is a great idea for humans. But this is a case of doing the right thing for the masses hurts the individual. Sad times.

JohnTHaller• 6 years ago

I can't wait until my $5,000 a year insurance with a $7,000 deductible here in the US comes up with a reason why it shouldn't be covered.

Fun Related Fact: I donated a kidney to my Dad in 2000. The Affordable Care Act is what finally made it so it was no longer a "pre-existing condition" that insurance companies could use to deny me coverage for anything semi-related to kidneys.

Total Cost of Her Covid-19 Treatment: $34,927.43

Related Stories