Transparency gone terribly wrong

“Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich today signed the Illinois Health Care Consumer’s Right-to-Know bill, which makes health care price and performance information for outpatient procedures available to all Illinois consumers.”

That was over 13 years ago, and we can see how well that’s worked out. Recently, co-blogger Bob V sent me a link to a story that not only indicates that we have a long way to go, but also implicitly explains why we likely will never really see true transparency:

“Her insurer’s price tool estimated less than $1,375 for a breast MRI. Then she got a bill for $3,200.”

Ms Smith apparently did everything right: she researched MRI facilities and prices using UHC’s online cost estimator [ed: and by the way, this is not an indictment of UHC in particular; I'm confident that that same would hold true with other carriers, as well], and still got socked with a larger-than-expected bill.

But why is that? Why is something so seemingly simple so difficult to obtain? After all, when I order a Big Mac and fries, I know exactly what I;’m going to shell out. Likewise a gallon of gas or an oil change. Why is medical care immune?

Well, there’s the obvious challenge that the doc can’t be sure that a particular surgery will go exactly as planned, and I get that. But simple things like non-emergency MRI’s should be basic, off-the-shelf, easily priced items.

Or so one would think.

But here’s the dirty little not-so-secret:

“Health-care costs are difficult to pin down because prices vary widely and are part of confidential agreements between insurers and providers.” [emphasis added]

Now, I actually “get” that: UHC doesn’t necessarily want Humana to know the specifics of its agreement with Dr Smith. And, of course, coverage will often change depending on one’s plan’s design. I just don’t see how to square the circle.