UPMC and Highmark will have another agreement expire

[gg]

Hospitals are enjoying the baby boomers rolling through right now. That is going to end soon enough and things will change. Unless of course the drug companies can get more and more people hooked on pain killers.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by gg

Hospitals are enjoying the baby boomers rolling through right now. That is going to end soon enough and things will change. Unless of course the drug companies can get more and more people hooked on pain killers.

Contrary to popular belief, millennials actually make up a greater portion of the U.S. population than baby boomers. We will see growth in the aged population level off in the next few years, but we won't see the aged population shrinking by a lot, though it is possible that the health of aged people improves over time. That's a tough thing to predict, though.

This graphic helps visualize it:

https://knoema.com/egyydzc/us-popula...and-generation

[gg]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

Contrary to popular belief, millennials actually make up a greater portion of the U.S. population than baby boomers. We will see growth in the aged population level off in the next few years, but we won't see the aged population shrinking by a lot, though it is possible that the health of aged people improves over time. That's a tough thing to predict, though.

This graphic helps visualize it:

https://knoema.com/egyydzc/us-popula...and-generation

Thanks. Loved that I learned something today. Heck even my little gen X isn't all that tiny. Guess the medical industry will continue to flourish and I don't think the younger set is.... well as tough as the baby-boomer folks, and before anyone says anything, I will include my Gen X group as not being as tough, so they will probably run to the doctor if they have a sniffle.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

I agree on all accounts. Hospital bed reduction and either site-neutral reimbursement or strict management of site-of-care are highly likely in a universal healthcare situation. This would bring revenues way down and also reduce the number of facilities and reduce the opportunity for physicians and hospital managers to arbitrage reimbursement schemes.

It's worth noting that Americans actually spend less days in the hospital per admission than the OECD average. We also go to the doctor less frequently. IIRC use of diagnostic imaging is the only utilization we're way above international averages.

The problem isn't that America overuses medical care, the problem is the per-procedure costs are just to friggin expensive. Trimming the fat out of the U.S. system will of course involve job losses, but it shouldn't involve substantial reduction in hospital beds.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's worth noting that Americans actually spend less days in the hospital per admission than the OCED average. We also go to the doctor less frequently. IIRC use of diagnostic imaging is the only utilization we're way above international averages.

The problem isn't that America overuses medical care, the problem is the per-procedure costs are just to friggin expensive. Trimming the fat out of the U.S. system will of course involve job losses, but it shouldn't involve substantial reduction in hospital beds.

It depends what you consider an inpatient admission and inpatient bed day. Over the past several years, there has been a significant push to using hospital beds for observation. An observation is not considered an inpatient admission, is less intensive, and pays 30-50% of what a true inpatient admission pays per day. I don't know whether that is factored into the OCED data or not, but I will say it adds to the nuance and challenge of analyzing our healthcare economy, which happens to be my area of expertise, albeit in a niche somewhat removed from inpatient bed capacity.

I also note that it seems as a nation we run at something like 50-70% inpatient bed capacity. This may be by design, since we would need those beds in the case of a pandemic flu or something, but worth pointing out that there are, on average, more hospital beds than there are patients.

[slamont61]

Government doesn't do anything particularly well so why ask them to "help" here? What they should do is revoke the non-profit status as Health Insurance Companies are ALL about money. Let them pay taxes and leave the Government out of this. I think very little of UPMC and Highmark as both leave a bad taste behind.

[Goinback2011]

I've been treated for about 10 years, off and on, for a rare cancer. I had my latest bout starting last December and went to Tampa for diagnosis and treatment, as that's the location of my original doctors. Since then, I've returned to Pittsburgh and continue treatment here. That was an easy transition with BCBS insurance. I'm not sure that's possible with UPMC insurance.

[guy2073]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

I've been treated for about 10 years, off and on, for a rare cancer. I had my latest bout starting last December and went to Tampa for diagnosis and treatment, as that's the location of my original doctors. Since then, I've returned to Pittsburgh and continue treatment here. That was an easy transition with BCBS insurance. I'm not sure that's possible with UPMC insurance.

No it is not, the specialist for my condition are at the Cleveland clinic, I am not allowed to go there under my insurance. I have to see an under qualified doctor here and pay for a treatment plan out of pocket from the Cleveland clinic.

[gg]

Thanks to UPMC's incredible amount of money due to them being a tax exempt company, they can now build three huge non-taxed buildings in Pittsburgh without servicing its residents unless of course they have THEIR insurance. Thankfully, for them they can hire some new million dollar a year pencil pushers that will be commenting from the suburbs. lol

UPMC sucks!