…
Ballad Health, a 20-hospital system in the Tri-Cities region of Tennessee and Virginia, benefits from the largest state-sanctioned hospital monopoly in the United States. In the six years since lawmakers in both states waived anti-monopoly laws and Ballad was formed, ER visits for patients sick enough to be hospitalized grew more than three times as long and now far exceed the criteria set by state officials, according to Ballad reports released by the Tennessee Department of Health.
Tennessee and Virginia have so far announced no steps to reduce time spent in Ballad ERs. The Tennessee health department, which has a more direct role in regulating Ballad, has each year issued a report saying the agreement that gave Ballad a monopoly “continues to provide a Public Advantage.” Department officials have twice declined to comment to KFF Health News on Ballad’s performance.
According to Ballad’s latest annual report, which was released this month and spans from July 2022 to June 2023, the median time that patients spend in Ballad ERs before being admitted to the hospital is nearly 11 hours. This statistic includes both time spent waiting and time being treated in the ER and excludes patients who weren’t admitted or left the ER without receiving care.
It would be kind of fucked having a state run healthcare provider competing with itself, no?
Does that mean the state run healthcare would more closely resemble a monopoly? ie the scenario that produced this drop in service quality?
Resemble a monopoly, yes, in the way a horse resembles a zebra. They might look similar but are decidedly different. Let’s break it down.
Private care monopoly: having no competition to lose business to, cuts corners as much as possible, maximizing profits while degrading quality of service. Can be ostensibly held to standards of care by local authorities but, being the only option, can often tell them to piss off.
Socialized hospital: being neither beholden to shareholders nor having a profit motive, has no financial incentive to cut corners provided the hospital is adequately funded. Funding is often contingent on achieving standards of care. Government can step in and reform underperforming facilities.
Given your previous replies, I suspect I’m going to regret this comment, but I’m feeling like rolling the dice.
True. Let’s see how that plays out
Unless there is anyone anywhere ever watching the budget. I’ve known government employees. They are cost conscious.
la la land
So a rough approximation of the free market’s natural incentives, except based on a central auditing committee instead of crowdsourced decision-making. So almost as good a system as a free market. Almost.
Markets do this too. They do it faster, better, and with less coercion.
That’s a lot of words and quotes when it would have been a lot faster to simply say:
“I am unable to contradict anything you said without pulling points out of context, completely disregarding others, and (my favorite of all) ending with a point that not only has been contradicted multiple times elsewhere, but is directly, stunningly contradicted by the very article we are commenting about.”
Thanks for the laugh, mate. You yanks are drowning in your kool-aid while screaming at anyone offering help that you’re Olympic swimmers.
deleted by creator
Monopoly implies market. Healthcare isn’t a commodity to everyone who’s not a capitalist pig.
An enforced monopoly isn’t a free market, as buyers have no choice but to buy from a particular seller.
The word free is a key component of the concept of a free market.
A “free market” is an idealist concept for something that can not exist in the real world under capitalism. In a system where resources are distributed based on capital, and resources themselves are capital, oligopolies and monopolies are logically inevitable and the market is never a level playing field.
The reality is that many goods and services have poor elasticity or are inelastic. A “free market” completely falls apart when it meets such variables. This includes healthcare – there is no economic incentive for the owning class to keep prices as low as possible, as people need healthcare and many times people will die without it. The way to make the most profit in that situation is for businesses in an area to simply make prices as high as legally possible and bury patients in debt, or for businesses to collaborate on price, etc.
This is doubly true when considering that people often don’t have a choice as to where they go to receive healthcare in many scenarios, there is no “just go to a different hospital” or “just get an ambulance from a different provider” or even “stop going to the only doctor in your area and instead drive 2 hours away whenever you want to go see one, and you have to have a car to do that”. So even in the completely unrealistic fake scenario that healthcare providers would otherwise have an incentive to “compete” on lowering price, this fact alone almost completely topples that. There is little to no choice a majority of the time.
People like to think of a “free market” but in real life the most profitable thing to do often times isn’t a good outcome for consumers. Just look how fucked up privatized rail caused transport in the US to be. And look at the healthcare system… which has sucked ever since it was a market. And look at the parking meters in Chicago. The complete and utter failure of those systems isn’t caused by “we regulate it too much”. Public services becoming private just causes them to become anti-consumer.
This isn’t healthcare-exclusive, but healthcare is so important and the system is so abusable that it must be owned by the public for society to be functional. A system where basic necessities aren’t commoditized is the only solution to make sure people have free access to basic necessities.
Also you fail to consider that monopolies and oligopolies come from somewhere. That somewhere is the “free market”. They didn’t just spontaneously pop into existence because of big government or whatever, they came into existence because of the lack of regulation and still exist because of there being extremely poor regulation. It is just a fact of the capitalist free market that people with more capital than others have the capacity to gain more capital, and people with less capital are prone to lose capital. There is no system that isn’t heavily regulated that consistently prevents a minority of entities in a market from accumulating a majority of resources over time. Corporatism emerges from free markets, and there is no solution short of extreme regulation for the problem (although the ideal solution is to just publicize all necessities and services important to the general population outright)
“It depends”. In a single payer scenario like they have in France, hospitals are private but patients are not forced to use a specific hospital chain because that’s the only provider that their insurance covers. The government acts as a counterbalance to try to keep prices low since they are the ones paying, and to keep quality higher since that’s another way of reducing cost for the outcome. A private vertical insurance/provider is incentivized to increase prices and reduce quality to improve profit.