Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Andrew Currall's avatar

I mean, OK, this is definitely a success story. You got your medical problem resolved and paid nothing extra on top of whatever your insurance costs you.

But you almost certainly didn't get $100,000 "worth" of medicine, or anywhere close to it. The "sticker price" of most medication in the US that you supposedly pay OOP is almost totally fictional. Basically no-one ever pays it; it's probably several orders of magnitude above the cost of production and distribution of your dose; and quite probably at least one order of magnitude over the total cost of everything to do with the drug, even including marketing, research, approval, and allowance for research for failed drugs.

It depends a bit what you're optimising for. The US system is almost certainly not optimal overall, and it *definitely* isn't optimally efficient (the US spends a lot on healthcare relative to outcomes, even allowing for it being wealthy overall and arguably subsidising drug-research for the rest of the world).

The UK has a basically simpler, and more "efficient" system, in that it spends dramatically less and doesn't get outcomes proportionally worse. But it allocates scarce resources essentially by queueing and hassle, which generates deadweight loss. This isn't great, and is particularly bad if you're rich, since you presumably value your time more highly in money terms. But of course, in the UK you can still get private healthcare, and unlike in the US, they won't present you with the choice of an insurance beauracracy or ludicrous list prices and risk you having to pay 10x the actual value of the treatment. On the other, other hand, the existence of the NHS means there's a lot less private healthcare around, so your options are more limited.

I'm convinced that healthcare is a particularly hard part of the economy to make work in any remotely sane way. Somehow we seem to muddle along anyway.

Expand full comment

No posts