When patients can see prices and compare options, they are more likely to behave like consumers.
getty
For more than two decades, health policy has experimented with a simple idea: give patients more financial responsibility and they will become more discerning consumers of care.
Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and high-deductible health plans were supposed to encourage exactly that. Instead, the evidence has been mixed at best. Studies show that when patients face higher out-of-pocket costs, they cut back on both low-value and high-value care. Critics have taken this as evidence that consumer-directed healthcare was a mistake from the start.
But that conclusion goes too far. It assumes patients are incapable of making better decisions and treats two decades of experience as a fair test, when what we have actually observed is a partial, not fully functioning, consumer market.
A more useful question is: If consumer-directed healthcare has been around for more than 20 years, why hasn’t the market responded?
In many other sectors, early consumer mistakes do not discredit the model; they trigger adaptation. Consider retirement saving. When 401(k)s spread in the 1980s and ’90s, workers made plenty of mistakes — failing to enroll, sticking with weak defaults, chasing returns and holding poorly diversified portfolios. Had policymakers judged the system by those early outcomes, they might have concluded that ordinary Americans were unfit to manage retirement assets.
Instead, the system evolved. Automatic enrollment increased participation. Target-date funds simplified allocation. Competition brought down costs. Consumers did not become experts, but the surrounding institutions made it easier to make better decisions.
Healthcare has followed a different path. Patients’ exposure to costs has increased, but the surrounding system — decision support, pricing tools and information — has not evolved in ways that make those tradeoffs easier to navigate. The result is not a functioning consumer market, but a partial one: patients face real financial exposure, but lack the tools to make better choices.
That helps explain why the expected wave of innovation has been slow to materialize.
The issue is not technical feasibility. Much of the underlying plumbing already exists. Thanks to the healthcare price transparency initiative, prices are increasingly available. Insurers hold the data needed to estimate a patient’s out-of-pocket cost given their deductible and network. APIs can connect those data. And advances in artificial intelligence make it possible not only to translate complex benefit designs into usable guidance but also to offer assistance with healthcare decision-making.
Nor is it the case that consumers will never shop. Where the conditions are right — routine transactions, comparable products and real price exposure — tools have emerged. Prescription drugs are the clearest example. Platforms like GoodRx have made it easy for patients to comparison shop across pharmacies, and millions of consumers now do exactly that.
The deeper problem is that the conditions needed to support a scalable market response have been weak.
The missing tools are not just a story of technical delay. The business case has been weaker than many advocates assumed. Patients do not consistently face clear, shoppable decisions, and many choices are embedded in physician referral, scheduling and health-system workflows before the patient ever begins to compare options. At the same time, employers, insurers and providers often benefit from arrangements that are more complex and less transparent than a true consumer market would require. And even when prices are nominally “available,” turning raw price, network and deductible data into a consumer-friendly product is harder than it sounds.
The challenge has not been inventing the technology. It has been building a market around it that can sustain widespread use
That may be starting to change.
Congress has expanded HSAs, including by making Affordable Care Act Marketplace bronze and catastrophic plans eligible. That matters not because HSAs solve these problems on their own, but because they can strengthen the one ingredient that has been missing: a reason for patients to care about price at the margin.
If that signal becomes more consistent, it creates an opening.
Entrepreneurs can build tools that integrate price, benefit design and provider networks into a single interface. Employers can offer incentives for choosing lower-cost providers. Insurers can simplify benefit structures to make tradeoffs clearer. Providers can compete more directly on price for routine and elective services.
In other words, HSAs are not the end of consumer-directed healthcare. They remain a meaningful catalyst for the market responses that have so far been limited.
The real opportunity is not in debating whether patients can shop for care, but in building the systems that make it possible. The technical barriers are lower than they have ever been. The policy environment is shifting. And early examples, like prescription drug pricing tools, suggest that consumers will respond when given the chance.
After 25 years, the question is no longer whether consumer-directed healthcare can work in theory. It is whether policymakers and innovators will allow the market to evolve in ways that make it work in practice.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。