>when a person is sick or injured, they usually are not able to comparison shop
You argument seems to be that since this doesn't work in all situations, it is useless. I strongly disagree.
On my current commute to work, I drive by at least 2 major hospitals and know that a 3rd is not far out of the way. If I was willing to drive up to 2 hours, I could choose from at least 7 major hospitals. For emergencies I don't have time to shop. If it is something important but planned (fixing a torn ACL) it would be nice to be able to look up the price at the 7 different hospitals. If one is 1/3 the price of the others, I know which one I am picking. Current rules make it impossible to price shop for fixing an ACL this would make it at least possible.
Oh come on. This has got to be a bad faith argument.
Most of us either choose the lowest cost option on the public market that suits our needs for emergency care or take our employers options, of which there are one or two. Even if you had previously made a choice, which again is not something most people can or want to do, when an emergency happens, it’s an emergency! You will have to be taken somewhere.
There are many times when an ER is full, you are outside of your home area, maybe just traffic, that would push you to another hospital in an emergency. Your argument is not only poorly made, I find it hysterically obtuse. Most people don’t want to get to or even have to choose their damned emergency care. To assert otherwise is disingenuous
That doesn't always help. As an example, the only level 1 trauma center in SF - Zuckerberg SF General - where you'd be taken if you were unconscious and in bad condition after a bad car wreck, is out of network for every insurer in the area. If I'm not mistaken, that means that you'd be balance billed for an enormous amount when you regained consciousness.
And for most major health care issues, the primary concern of the patient isn't price, but rather outcomes - quality of care. Do we choose the cheapest doctor, or the doctor with the best reputation?
My wife, who is a dancer, tore her ACL last year. Not getting it fixed, and fixed right, was the difference between being able to continue dancing, and having to give up the thing she loves the most. So when decisions like "Use transplant tissue, or cadaver tissue?" came up, there was zero thought given to "Which one costs the most?" It was all "Which one is most likely to get her back on her feet and allow her to continue dancing?"
My reasoning still applies, though. My spouse wasn't going to base her decision on who should fix her torn ACL based on cost, no matter what the price difference. If you have life-threatening cancer, do you go to the cheapest oncologist, or the one you think is mostly likely to save your life?
The real financial decision isn't on price comparison, but rather whether or not to get the treatment at all. I made a cost-based decision on treatment a while back. I was being treated for an eye problem where I was at risk of permanent blindness in my right eye. Treatment involved monthly injections of a quite inexpensive drug (about $27 iirc), that was inexpensive because it was developed for other, more common conditions and had been around for a long time. My doctor wanted to try a new, specialized drug, hoping for better results. It cost $8000 a dose. With 90% coverage, I would have been paying $800/mo out of pocket. I decided to stick with the cheap drug that seemed to be working.
But that's the sort of cost difference that matters, not the "This doctor is 5% cheaper!" dream of idealized free markets.
I would like to point out that you have a very privileged position in life to be able to say that cost is no object to the quality of care you receive. Not every has that luxury. Also, there are some people in some situations that would be willing to sacrifice quality of care on price.
Don't belittle the point by calling it "privilege". I'm in the same situation as most Americans with employer-provided health insurance. The real cost decision, as I pointed out in another comment, is whether or not to get care at all, rather than to choose between Doctor A, or Doctor B who costs 5% less.
This is exacerbated by the fact that our insurance hides most of the cost variation from us anyway, and health care networks turn potentially cheaper care into probably much more expensive care. Writing this all off as "privilege" is a gross, lazy oversimplification.
Your argument seems to be that since you live within range of many health provider options, that everyone does. I strongly disagree (for the obvious reason: not everyone does).
Sorry, no. Not only do doctors and surgeons vary dramatically in competency, specialty groups within a facility can vary a lot. Further - even if we take it to the seemingling simple, like where to get an MRI - how are you able to ascertain the quality of the equipment used? The competency of the operator? The competecy of the person do the reading of the results that will guide your doctor/specialist?
You argument seems to be that since this doesn't work in all situations, it is useless. I strongly disagree.
On my current commute to work, I drive by at least 2 major hospitals and know that a 3rd is not far out of the way. If I was willing to drive up to 2 hours, I could choose from at least 7 major hospitals. For emergencies I don't have time to shop. If it is something important but planned (fixing a torn ACL) it would be nice to be able to look up the price at the 7 different hospitals. If one is 1/3 the price of the others, I know which one I am picking. Current rules make it impossible to price shop for fixing an ACL this would make it at least possible.