Brilliant Idea
Here's a thought. Let the market decide on health care costs and value of services. Better yet - give consumers a way to compare prices and decide for themselves exactly what they need. Sound good? Meet Carol.
PLYMOUTH, Minn. - You can buy almost anything online these days, but try shopping the Internet for an MRI, strep throat test or even an annual physical exam and you'll run into roadblocks.
A new Twin Cities company called Carol is trying to change that with a Web site that gives consumers a "care marketplace" to search for medical services, compare quality and price and make appointments.Carol joins an effort to transform the U.S. health care system by putting consumers in charge and letting the market do its work.
"We want to let consumers define value," said Tony Miller, Carol's founder and chief executive officer. "We don't have care competition in the marketplace today."
The free site, which went live in January, generates revenue from health care providers who become "tenants" on the site. When a consumer sets up an appointment with a clinic or doctor on Carol.com, the provider pays the site a fee.
While limited to about 30 providers in the Twin Cities area at its launch, the company is adding others and plans to serve a second U.S. market sometime this year, Miller said.
Now the usual statists are raising heck about this, complaining that this kind of market-driven approach shouldn't be allowed when they think the state should regulate.
But this exact, same approach is touted as good for consumers in auto insurance and just about any other product, commodity and service. See Amazon.com or Progressive Insurance for example.
Why would it not work for health care? Because the government isn't running it? Oh, please. Do you trust the government to make decisions for your health care? Really?
Here's Carol.com. Go see what they are doing. It's a good concept with real potential.
By syn, Monday, 11 February , 2008 @ 5:32 am
Now this is the indomitable America spirit I like to see; finding ways to get out from under the government’s thumb!
By Mockinbird, Monday, 11 February , 2008 @ 11:07 am
This is an excellent idea!
Competition: high quality dominates, lowest prices, best values!
By Sam, Monday, 11 February , 2008 @ 3:24 pm
Thanks for the info. We need more of these bright ideas to solve the health care cost and access problems, or else we will go down the tubes into some sort of government controlled health care system. The more of these things that spring up, like Carol.com, and heath clinics in Wal-mart, the harder it will be to move to a government dominated system.
By Bleepless, Monday, 11 February , 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Somebody ought to give some thought to ascertaining, and publicizing, the number and locations of Canadians in US medical facilities because of the near-collapse of the Canadian system, as well as what kind of treatment they are receiving. I am not at all certain how this could be accomplished, if at all.
By Yuri, Monday, 11 February , 2008 @ 10:25 pm
good idea. As I’ve been commenting in these pages, the lack of transparency is one of the biggest problems in perverse and often baffling health care system in this country.
Some people say that’s why the Lasik is now so cheap - that competition was allowed to thrive since insurance would not cover it and consumers were actually shopping for the best price.
Very good.
Now Lasik is an elective procedure for a non life-threatening condition - myopia.
The MRI’s are presumably sought by people with serious conditions which are time-sensitive.
Granted, those few of us who can afford to pay out of pocket for treatment of the kind of illnesses that require MRI’s will benefit tremendously from this service.
The people on HMO, though, will find out (only after hours of phone-calls) that only one of the 30 providers is actually covered by their plan. And if they have two options they will not care since for them the cost is the same.
That to me is the biggest problem with the healthcare system anywhere: if you want it to be very efficient you have to allow competition, but that means that some (a lot of) people will not be able to afford treatment. If you consider a right to medical care one of the human rights, you regulate prices and stifle innovation, which is no good either.
IMHO, in the battle between the two, a compassionate liberal or a compassionate conservative both should err on the side of providing care to everybody who needs it.
I’m not sure the universal health care is the good answer, but from what I experienced, read and heard - it seems to be the least evil one. At least I’d know that some stock holders are not getting rich because I’m not allowed an insulin pump I want.