[HN Gopher] US commercial insurers pay 254% of Medicare for the ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       US commercial insurers pay 254% of Medicare for the same hospital
       procedures
        
       Author : rexroad
       Score  : 51 points
       Date   : 2026-03-16 17:13 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (github.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
        
       | rexroad wrote:
       | Author here. The 254% figure comes from RAND Round 5.1. I built a
       | Python pipeline on CMS HCRIS cost reports (FY2023, 3,193
       | hospitals) to compute cost-to-charge ratios by ownership type.
       | The surprising finding: nonprofit hospitals have a median markup
       | of 3.96x actual costs. All scripts are in the repo. Happy to
       | discuss methodology.
        
       | cmiles8 wrote:
       | Challenge is the whole system is just a mess. Medicare probably
       | lays too little. Commercial insurers have formed a mountain of
       | red tape and bureaucracy and arguably pay too much, although
       | individual bills (EOBs) are rarely logically defensible against
       | any scrutiny.
       | 
       | Healthcare providers try and combat all this by literally just
       | making up pricing and trying to negotiate something while also
       | having bloated administrative structures that raise costs for
       | all.
       | 
       | Nothing about the current state of the healthcare system makes
       | much sense to anyone that tries to peel back the onion.
        
       | paulddraper wrote:
       | This is a believable result. Meta-analysis is 141-259% [1].
       | 
       | Three reasons:
       | 
       | 1. Medicare has quasi-monopolistic negotiation power that private
       | insurers can only dream of -- Medicare spend two-thirds of all
       | the private insurers combined. That's why private insurers would
       | combine in a heartbeat if the FTC allowed it.
       | 
       | 2. Moreover, that Medicare volume is concentrated in a specific
       | segment of the market. If many providers dropped expensive United
       | contracts, the insured people/companies might move to a new
       | insurer. But Medicare's base will never leave.
       | 
       | 3. Since Medicare covers older individuals, often on a fixed
       | income, there is natural discriminatory pricing. (Think of the
       | "senior discount" at your local entertainment venue.)
       | 
       | [1] https://www.kff.org/medicare/how-much-more-than-medicare-
       | do-...
        
         | observationist wrote:
         | Look at hearing aids. 50,000% markup or higher, even up in the
         | 70k% range in some examples. Old people don't know what to be
         | skeptical of, or at least haven't been nearly skeptical enough,
         | and some industries are getting away with terrible
         | exploitation, all blessed and sanctioned by the FDA.
        
         | levocardia wrote:
         | Also, commercial insurers are essentially cross-subsidizing
         | Medicare: the higher revenue from commercial insurers is partly
         | _why_ Medicare can be paid less. Similar dynamics exist with
         | drug prices: the high US cost is a cross-subsidy to other
         | countries. Maybe this is good (someone 's got to fund R&D),
         | maybe this is bad (it's a net wealth transfer to the elderly),
         | but it's an important part of the dynamic either way.
        
       | recursivedoubts wrote:
       | Daily reminder that the United States spends more public money
       | per capita on healthcare than any other country and it's not
       | close[1].
       | 
       | If you want to know what socialized healthcare in the US would
       | look like, you are lookin' at it right now bub.
       | 
       | [1] -
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...
        
         | jltsiren wrote:
         | Daily reminder to always check data definitions before
         | interpreting statistics.
         | 
         | According to the OECD data, US 2023 healthcare spending was 28%
         | by the government, 55% by private health insurance, 11% out of
         | pocket, and 5% from other sources. OECD lists all US private
         | health insurance policies under the "compulsory health
         | insurance" heading. Apparently because there is no clear
         | separation between compulsory and voluntary insurance, and
         | because employer-paid insurance is not truly voluntary when it
         | exists. (Because there is usually no option to take cash
         | instead.)
         | 
         | And then the chart you linked to combines compulsory insurance
         | with government spending. Mostly because if compulsory health
         | insurance exists in an OECD member state, it is usually legally
         | mandated, regardless of whether it is provided by public or
         | private entities.
        
       | timtim51251 wrote:
       | Lots of people are saying nonsense here. The actual reason
       | commercial insurers pay more is that's the only way to can make
       | more profits.
       | 
       | Because of Obamacare requiring 80% of the money they collect to
       | be spent, the insurance companies just get to keep 20%. So
       | insurance companies spend more so they can collect higher
       | premiums. That's how they make more money.
       | 
       | Several doctor friends have told me this as well.
        
         | skybrian wrote:
         | I was under the impression that some companies that provide
         | insurance also provide healthcare?
        
         | shdudns wrote:
         | This. It's hard to believe that the Obama team could have been
         | this financially incompetent.
        
           | bmcahren wrote:
           | It's easy with hindsight to believe you could have capped
           | expense at 200% medicare but getting what we got passed was
           | nearly impossible at the time. Before Affordable Care Act,
           | insurers had every tool available to deny care, maximize
           | profits, and skim more than 20% off the top. It's great we're
           | getting closer to the point that it feels to you like
           | incompetence that these things aren't fixed today but your
           | anger with the medical lobby is clearly misplaced here.
           | 
           | Every major piece of legislation needs revisions to chase
           | circumvention and we're well past due on updates but no
           | legitimate bills have been presented that cover these topics
           | and that's not a one-party issue.
        
           | vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
           | [delayed]
        
         | genthree wrote:
         | These limits don't apply to self-funded programs that are
         | administered by big insurance companies (most large employers'
         | plans, then) or plans less than two years old (whether there
         | are measures in place to prevent simply rotating plans often to
         | exploit this, I do not know)
        
         | cogman10 wrote:
         | This seems like we need similar price caps for healthcare
         | providers, medical equipment providers, pharmaceuticals, etc.
         | Done just in isolation for 1 part of the healthcare industry
         | results in this obvious bad effect.
         | 
         | Removing the rule wouldn't help things.
        
         | raw_anon_1111 wrote:
         | So I happen to be in Costa Rica for the month. Just like every
         | other 1st world country, it has managed to have universal
         | health care that is better and cheaper without private
         | insurance.
         | 
         | Even if you do get private insurance for quicker access, it's
         | still much cheaper than the US.
         | 
         | I just spoke to someone who flew down here to save $30K on
         | dental work.
         | 
         | The problem isn't the ACA, it's the ass backwards American
         | health care system. I was at a meetup of American ex-pats here
         | and half of them said they established residency here to join
         | CAJA - the health care system
        
         | phil21 wrote:
         | In a vacuum sure. But insurance companies operate the only part
         | of the healthcare system that is moderately competitive. In the
         | end employers are the ones largely paying and they are
         | professional negotiators enough to put price pressure on
         | insurance plans.
         | 
         | As such, as light of an incentive it is - it's the only party
         | in the entire system that is incentivized in any way whatsoever
         | to keep costs down.
        
         | thaumasiotes wrote:
         | You've identified a real issue with cost-plus pricing. But
         | there's more to it than that. Commercial insurers have to pay
         | more than Medicare, for the very simple reason that Medicare's
         | pricing terms are that they get a discount beyond whatever the
         | lowest price is that you charge anyone for the same thing.
        
       | notfried wrote:
       | I like this. It'd be great to see such a table of the key issues
       | with proposed solutions, to highlight how the waste isn't an
       | insurmountable impossibility to solve. Having said that, federal
       | lobbying by the healthcare industry was $750 million in 2024 [1],
       | and this is the blocker that needs to be addressed first to be
       | able to enact change.
       | 
       | [1] https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/view/health-
       | syste...
        
       | rimbo789 wrote:
       | Having worked in for profit health care pricing and costing yup
       | that makes sense.
       | 
       | The layering on of profit margins causes costs to grow
       | exponentially
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-03-16 23:00 UTC)