BajaNomad - Report on Hospital costs in Mexico

Report on Hospital costs in Mexico

monoloco - 4-7-2013 at 08:44 AM

Between 1960 and 2011, per capita health care spending rose by about 5,400 percent from $147 in 1960 to $8,311 in 2011. If other prices rose like that, here's what it might look like today:

Family Dinner: $176.58

Tube of Toothpaste: $13.50

Volkswagen Beetle: $95,526

Gallon of gas: $13.50

Average income: $287,010

Electric can opener: $479.52

yellowklr - 4-7-2013 at 09:12 AM

IN The USA its only gonna ge worse with OBAMA CARE.....Just wait

Santiago - 4-7-2013 at 09:22 AM

I can see this is not going to work - I deleted the post.

[Edited on 4-7-2013 by Santiago]

The waiting will be over in Jan 2014

durrelllrobert - 4-7-2013 at 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yellowklr
IN The USA its only gonna ge worse with OBAMA CARE.....Just wait

Insurance Analysts: Obamacare to Increase Out-of-Pocket Premium Costs, Despite Lavish Subsidies

In 2009, when a prominent accounting firm released a report describing how Obamacare would drive up the cost of health insurance, supporters of the health-care bill were furious, declaring that only insurance-industry shills would be craven enough to produce such poppyc-ck. After all, President Obama had repeatedly promised that his bill would “bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.” In addition, they argued, Obamacare will spend trillions of dollars on health insurance subsidies, such that the uninsured wouldn’t be exposed to any purported rate hikes.

But a new study by two members of the American Academy of Actuaries finds that tens of millions of Americans will be exposed to increased insurance costs, even when one takes the value of Obamacare’s subsidies into account.

The new report, authored by Kurt Giesa and Chris Carlson, was published in the latest issue of Contingencies, the American Academy of Actuaries’ bimonthly magazine. (Actuaries are people who specialize in the design and structure of insurance plans.) Their analysis focuses on Obamacare’s community rating provision, the piece of the law that forces young people to pay dramatically more for health insurance in order to partially subsidize the cost of insurance for older Americans.

How Obamacare Dramatically Increases The Cost of Insurance for Young Workers

CBO: 11 Million Uninsured Americans Will Be Subject to Obamacare's Individual Mandate 'Penalty Tax'

80 percent of twentysomething Americans face higher costs

Obamacare’s insurance exchanges were originally designed to subsidize the purchase of regulated, private-sector insurance for those with incomes between 138 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level: based on 2012 guidelines, that amounts to between $31,809 to $92,200 for a family of four.

But Giesa and Carlson estimate that 80 percent of Americans below the age of thirty in the individual market will face higher premiums, despite subsidies. “Our core finding is that young, single adults aged 21 to 29 and with incomes beginning at about 225 percent of the FPL, or roughly $25,000, can expect to see higher premiums than would be the case absent the ACA, even after accounting for the presence of the premium assistance.” Fully 80 percent of these twenty-somethings have income above $25,000:

“We estimate that almost 80 percent of those aged 21 to 29 with incomes greater than 138 percent of FPL who are enrolled in nongroup single coverage can expect to pay more out of pocket for coverage than they pay today—even after accounting for premium assistance. With a crossover point of about 300 percent of FPL for those aged 30 to 44, we estimate that about one-third of those older than age 29 with incomes greater than 138 percent FPL will see higher premiums even after accounting for premium assistance.

These higher costs on young people are especially significant because about two-thirds of the uninsured population is under the age of 40. Overall, the authors found that “premiums for younger, healthier individuals could increase by more than 40 percent” in the non-group insurance market due to Obamacare’s community rating provision. (A handful of states that already mandate community rating, like Massachusetts and New York, were excluded from the Giesa-Carlson analysis.)

Giesa and Carlson cite the example of a 25-year-old who makes $33,510 a year, for whom Obamacare will increase insurance costs by $783, inclusive of subsidies, with the underlying cost of insurance increasing by 42 percent:

“Consider, for example, a 25-year-old person with income at 300 percent of FPL, or $33,510. This person currently could purchase coverage for about $2,400 per year, or 7.2 percent of his or her income. Age band compression and the other changes to the ACA would result in premiums (before premium assistance) increasing by 42 percent to $3,408. As shown in Chart 2, this person at 300 percent FPL will be required to pay 9.5 percent of his or her income, or $3,183, toward the cost of coverage. The cost of his or her actual premium would increase by $783, even with the $225 in premium assistance. (The impact of cost-sharing reduction assistance at these income levels is not relevant because the assistance completely phases out at household incomes above 250 percent of FPL.)

Analysis excludes other cost-raising aspects of Obamacare

What’s especially troubling about the authors’ analysis is that it focuses primarily on community rating, and few of the other aspects of Obamacare that will drive up the cost of health insurance. Ironically, as the chart below shows, insurance costs will still increase on the elderly despite community rating.

“While our analysis focused primarily on the impact of age band compression,” they write, Obamacare’s requirement that insurers charge the healthy and the sick at similar rates “itself may increase premiums by roughly 17 percent to 20 percent for those who have preferred rates because of lower-than-average health risks. Young adults often qualify for these preferred rates. These increases would be in addition to any premium rate change due to age compression, required increases to benefits, or other factors discussed above.” Indeed, most estimates by insurance pros suggest that the totality of Obamacare will increase non-group premiums for young people by 80 to 100 percent.

Young people are already being hit hardest in the Obama economy. In December, the unemployment rate for Americans aged 20 to 24 was 38.5 percent. Those young people who are fortunate enough to find work have little to no savings, unlike their older peers. And yet it’s these very people who Obamacare forces to subsidize the cost of health insurance for wealthier, older Americans who’ve had decades to earn and save for their health care.

Young people are incentivized to go without insurance

The likely scenario is that young people will defy Obamacare’s individual mandate and go without health insurance, knowing that Obamacare guarantees they can sign up for insurance after they fall ill. “The relatively low penalties associated with the individual mandate make the effectiveness of the mandate uncertain, particularly in the first few years of reform when stability is essential and the penalty can be expected to fall well below the annual cost of the minimum standard of coverage required under the ACA.” This is exactly the point that the authors of the PriceWaterhouseCoopers study made in 2009, the report that was dismissed by progressive bloggers as “deceptive.”

Indeed, today’s reporters profess surprise at recent rate hikes. Last Saturday, Reed Abelson of the New York Times reported that “health insurance companies across the country or seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for insurers.”

In fact, the opposite is true: the authors of Obamacare frequently admitted that the law would do nothing to reduce insurance costs. Instead, they hoped that expanding coverage will help to build a broader political consensus to reduce costs…sometime in the future.

It’s funny. Obamacare’s supporters frequently complain about the usage of the term “Obamacare,” arguing that the “Affordable Care Act” is a more objective, neutral way to describe our new health law. But neutral observers are finding that the President’s health law will make health insurance less affordable. And there will never be any doubt as to which President signed Obamacare into law. As we head into 2014, President Obama’s pie-in-the-sky health-care promises are bound to resume their place at center stage.

www.forbes.com/.../obamacare-guarantees-higher-health-insura... ...

Santiago

neilm81301 - 4-8-2013 at 08:08 AM

I'm sorry you had to delete the post. I thought it was good, useful, interesting info.

Neil

Quote:

Originally posted by Santiago
I can see this is not going to work - I deleted the post.

[Edited on 4-7-2013 by Santiago]

mtgoat666 - 4-8-2013 at 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco
Between 1960 and 2011, per capita health care spending rose by about 5,400 percent from $147 in 1960 to $8,311 in 2011. If other prices rose like that, here's what it might look like today:

Family Dinner: $176.58

Tube of Toothpaste: $13.50

Volkswagen Beetle: $95,526

Gallon of gas: $13.50

Average income: $287,010

Electric can opener: $479.52

somebody got very lost comparing apples to orangutans

:lol:

DianaT - 4-8-2013 at 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Santiago
I can see this is not going to work - I deleted the post.

[Edited on 4-7-2013 by Santiago]

Smart move --- it could have been interesting, but headed off into never, never land.

DavidE - 4-8-2013 at 10:27 AM

Soy viejito no compendo...

Medical costs in México? Thirteen dollar tube of toothpaste? I guess I shudda took a look at the implications of "new math"

CortezBlue - 4-8-2013 at 10:39 AM

that is what i hate about this forum is the favoritism for some folks and censorship of others. I have been censored so many times for make accurate statements about certain posts or posters, and in a flash, gone!

In fact, this will probably be censored for stating a fact.

Why an Obamacare post had to be deleted is beyond me. We can't censor the future so we might as well figure out how to deal with it or change it.

Hook - 4-8-2013 at 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CortezBlue
that is what i hate about this forum is the favoritism for some folks and censorship of others. I have been censored so many times for make accurate statements about certain posts or posters, and in a flash, gone!

In fact, this will probably be censored for stating a fact.

Why an Obamacare post had to be deleted is beyond me. We can't censor the future so we might as well figure out how to deal with it or change it.

I've said some controversial things on this board but I CAN NEVER RECALL HAVING A POST CENSORED/REMOVED, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, BY DOUG, IF IT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH MEXICO.

He' one of the most liberal (not in the political sense, here) moderators of any board I've been on.

I dont know what you're talking about, Cortez. Did your "accurate statements about posts or posters" have anything to do with Baja/Mexico? Were they attacking them personally?

The original post was deleted by the original poster, in this case, I believe. It was self-imposed censorship. Is that not allowed in your ideal of a board?

Santiago - 4-8-2013 at 12:20 PM

I deleted the post because it was obvious that it was going to be OT material instead of what I hoped would be confirmation, or not, of what the article claimed what hospital stays cost in Mexico.
For example, in the mid 1980s, my father had a hernia surgery in Ensenada for a total of $1500. That's the hospital and surgeon's bill. He claimed this saved him about $6000 if he had it done under Medicare. Don't know what these numbers would be in today's costs.
Here is a link to the complete article for those interested:http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/07/5320435/viva-mexicos-ration...

DavidE - 4-8-2013 at 01:32 PM

In an attempt to contribute...

Many Seguro Popular hospitals are caring when it comes to emergency care that must be charged for. I had eight thousand dollars worth of charges that were reduced multi-fold when I answered their questions about 'range of income".

But hospitals are pretty much anchored to technology that is limited to levels of the 1950's in some areas of care. MRI's and CatScans are one area that only big hospitals in big cities can provide.

Kgryfon - 4-8-2013 at 03:56 PM

Santiago, I thought that was a great article and very on-topic...not sure why you deleted it.

Some personal hospital costs while in Mexico

Pompano - 4-8-2013 at 05:42 PM

I dunno, something's always getting broken, punctured, bitten, or chewed in Baja if you stay active...hey, you roll with the punches. Here's just a few highlights over the years.

1964 Acapulco. $50 for cleaning, suturing and keeping quiet about a 5-inch knife gash in upper right leg. Interesting scar and memory.

1971 Hospital ER nurse treatment. Hit and run driver causing our highway rollover. 3 people treated for cuts, bruises, removing bits of imbedded glass, lacerated kneecap (requiring reconstructive surgery later in USA.) at Zacatecas, mainland Mexico = about $300 USD Anecdote: we were visited by 'road vultures' while at accident scene.

1973 Santa Rosalia Naval Hospital. A few stitches to close wound over left eye due to moray/lobster snafu while diving San Marcos Island = about $80 USD

1975 - 2012 Mulege Hospital first aid. Various treatments & sutures for rattlesnake bite, scorpion-black widow bites, sting ray spear to ankle, slicing tip of right index finger off, food poisoning, pulled Achilles tendon, & multiple broken heart incidences. :rolleyes:

= usually a simple $200 dollar donation ... depending on the severity of the event.

2002 - La Paz Navy Hospital. Acute appendicitis operation/major surgery to prevent peritonitis to Co-pilot. $5000 USD to surgeon, $1500 to hospital, $500 to private residential nurse. Great surgeon, staff, and nurse. Naval commandant granted me permission to be in the operating room. Everyone was a savior that day. Downside was a very dreary hospital room with blood stains on one wall....so I immediately moved the whole shebang to USD with an attending nurse and doctor visits. Total was around $7,000 USD, but worth every peso to save a life.

To answer Santiago's original question...or what I imagine it is about costs...I will state that certainly all hospital visits I've had in Mexico were of a very economical nature and I never spent a peso I regretted...quite the contrary. Viva Baja and any available hospitals...it's hospitalization at bargain prices...but I hope to not visit them quite as often in the future!

I don't believe hospital costs in Baja are as out of control as the current breakdown in the USA medical system...or the wait for quality care as long as it can be in Canada.

EnsenadaDr - 4-8-2013 at 07:03 PM

I didn't get the Volkswagen Beetle being included in the bill for the hospital, and a $50 American can opener? what's that all about?

EngineerMike - 4-10-2013 at 06:04 PM

Reminds me of some sage advice I received on first touring Mexico:
"When you are in Mexico, and you see a hole- don't fall in it.
Cuz its a hole.
And you'll get hurt.
And there is nobody to sue because you fell in a hole.
If you try to sue somebody because you fell in a hole, they'll laugh at you.
Because you are an idiot."

In Mexico, they treat your wounds & ailments.
In the USA you get legal advice and lessons in indemnifications, then they treat your wounds & ailments. In the States the sharks eat first, then the doctors. No wonder a trip to the doctor costs an arm & a leg.

monoloco - 4-10-2013 at 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by EnsenadaDr
I didn't get the Volkswagen Beetle being included in the bill for the hospital, and a $50 American can opener? what's that all about?

It was from an article about how medical expenses in the US have increased at a much more rapid pace than other consumer goods and illustrates what things would cost if they had increased at the same rate as medical care has.

Udo - 4-10-2013 at 06:41 PM

That sum seems paltry compared to the many thousands of percentage that our healthcare has risen...as they said before...wait 'til Obamacare!

Quote: