Health Care Competition

Health care service providers compete on four different unproductive kinds of competition.
First is annual competition to enroll more subscribers for health plans. It not only restricts the network for the payer but also its goal is not to provide value for the long term as the subscription is only for one year.

Second is to give deep discounts to payers or employers to have increased flow of patient population just because they are associated with large companies. It is not economical because it takes same resources and cost for hospital to treat discounted patient and a self-employed patient. These discounts merely shift the cost to small groups and provide benefits to large groups which eventually increase the number the uninsured patients having expensive treatment which has to be subsidized.

Third form of incorrect competition is to become most dominant group in market which provides comprehensive collection of services. It results in mergers of the hospitals and having duplicated specialties in two departments rather than improving the quality of one department.

Lastly, the argument over ‘who pays’ does not generate value for the patients because suppliers and consumers try to transfer costs to each other. Health planners either deny to pay or payers raise rates for subscribers. So the competition is

Cost in U.S is charged on three different ways. Study suggests that the greater costs are not linked with improved medical outcomes or degree of ailment or cost of living. The major variances across regions in outcomes are due to localized competition. Competition in this system should be at regional or even national level, especially for more complex or uncommon conditions. The relationship between the local providers and wide array of leading providers speed up the quality and efficiency throughout the system but it is