Sick, Uninsured and Charged 10 Times the Cost of Hospital Care

Sick, Uninsured and Charged 10 Times the Cost of Hospital Care

iStockphoto
By Millie Dent

A pack of for-profit hospitals are taking too many liberties with their for-profit names. A new study by Health Affairs found 50 hospitals in the U.S. have markups over 10 times the actual cost of care. The data was found using 2012 Medicare cost reports.

At the top of the list is North Okaloosa Medical Center, located about an hour outside of Pensacola, Fla. The hospital was found to charge uninsured patients 12.6 times the actual cost of patient care. A typical hospital charges 3.4 times the cost of patient care.  

The largest numbers of the hospitals on the list – 20 – are in Florida. Of the 50, 49 are for-profit and 46 are owned by for-profit hospital systems. One for-profit hospital system, Community Health Systems, owns and operates 25 of the hospitals on the list. Hospital Corporation of America operates 14 others.

Related: If SCOTUS Rule Against Obamacare, Health Care Costs Will Soar

Uninsured individuals are commonly asked to pay the full amount, unaware they are being scammed. The markups can lead to personal bankruptcy or the avoidance of necessary medical attention.

"The main causes of these extremely high markups are a lack of price transparency and negotiating power by uninsured patients, out-of network patients, casualty and workers' compensation insurers and even in-network insurers," the study reads. "Federal and state policymakers need to recognize the extent of hospital markups and consider policy solutions to contain them." 

Most astounding of all, these markups are not illegal. Maryland and West Virginia are the only states with laws limiting hospital fees.

Researchers offered solutions in the study, including limitations on the charge-to-cost ratio, mandated price disclosure to regulate the markups or some form of all-payer rate setting. 

Trump Falls to Second in Michigan Poll

By The Fiscal Times Staff

 

Michigan GOP Poll

Ben Carson Gains in New Hampshire

By The Fiscal Times Staff

  

Ben Carson Is Catching Up to Trump in New National GOP Poll

By The Fiscal Times Staff

 

The 10 Worst States to Have a Baby

Like all of these “commodities,” even if you don’t need it yourself, odds are that someone in your economic circles does. (When Americans on welfare get their checks, formula and diapers are some of their first purchases.) It’s portable, there’s no ready
Temych/iStockphoto
By Millie Dent

The birth rate in the U.S. is finally seeing an uptick after falling during the recession. Births tend to fall during hard economic times because having a baby and raising a child are expensive propositions.

Costs are not the same everywhere, though. Some states are better than others for family budgets, and health care quality varies widely from place to place.

A new report from WalletHub looks at the cost of delivering a baby in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as overall health care quality and the general “baby-friendliness” of each state – a mix of variables including average birth weights, pollution levels and the availability of child care.

Mississippi ranks as the worst state to have a baby, despite having the lowest average infant-care costs in the nation. Unfortunately, the Magnolia State also has the highest rate of infant deaths and one of lowest numbers of pediatricians per capita.  

Related: Which States Have the Most Unwanted Babies?

On the other end of the scale, Vermont ranks as the best state for having a baby.  Vermont has both the highest number of pediatricians and the highest number of child centers per capita. But before packing your bags, it’s worth considering the frigid winters in the Green Mountain State and the amount of money you’ll need to spend on winter clothing and heat.

Here are the 10 worst and 10 best states for having a baby:

Top 10 Worst States to Have a Baby

1. Mississippi

  • Budget Rank: 18
  • Health Care Rank: 51
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 29

2. Pennsylvania

  • Budget Rank: 37
  • Health Care Rank: 36
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 51

3. West Virginia

  • Budget Rank: 13
  • Health Care Rank: 48
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 50

4. South Carolina

  • Budget Rank: 22
  • Health Care Rank: 43
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 49

5. Nevada

  • Budget Rank: 39
  • Health Care Rank: 35
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 46

6. New York

  • Budget Rank: 46
  • Health Care Rank: 12
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 47

7. Louisiana

  • Budget Rank: 8
  • Health Care Rank: 50
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 26

8. Georgia

  • Budget Rank: 6
  • Health Care Rank: 46
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 43

9. Alabama

  • Budget Rank: 3
  • Health Care Rank: 47
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 44

10. Arkansas

  • Budget Rank: 12
  • Health Care Rank: 49
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 37

Top 10 Best States to Have a Baby

1. Vermont

  • Budget Ranks: 17
  • Health Care Rank: 1
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 5

2. North Dakota

  • Budget Rank: 10
  • Health Care Rank: 14
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 10

3. Oregon

  • Budget Rank: 38
  • Health Care Rank: 2
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 14

4. Hawaii

  • Budget Rank: 31
  • Health Care Rank: 25
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 1

5. Minnesota

  • Budget Rank: 32
  • Health Care Rank: 5
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 12

6. Kentucky

  • Budget Rank: 1
  • Health Care Rank: 33
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 20

7. Maine

  • Budget Rank: 25
  • Health Care Rank: 10
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 15

8. Wyoming

  • Budget Rank: 22
  • Health Care Rank: 17
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 7

9. Iowa

  • Budget Rank: 14
  • Health Care Rank: 25
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 9

10. Alaska

  • Budget Rank: 50
  • Health Care Rank: 6
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 2

Top Reads From The Fiscal Times

Worried About a Recession? Here’s When the Next Slump Will Hit

Another <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/06/08/cnn-opinion.research.corporation.poll.pdf" target="_blank">recent survey</a> found that 48 percent of Americans believe that it is likely that another great Depression will begin within the n
Dorothea Lange/Library of Congress
By Beth Braverman

The next recession may be coming sooner than you think.

Eleven of the 31 economists recently surveyed by Bloomberg believed the American recession would hit in 2018, and all but two of them expected the recession to begin within the next five years.

If the recession begins in 2018, the expansion would have lasted nine years, making it the second-longest period of growth in U.S. history after the decade-long expansion that ended when the tech bubble burst in 2001. This average postwar expansion averages about five years.

The recent turmoil in the stock market and the slowdown in China has more investors and analysts using the “R-word,” but the economists surveyed by Bloomberg think we have a bit of time. They pegged the chance of recession over the next 12 months to just 10 percent.

Related: Stocks Are Sending a Recession Warning

While economists talk about the next official recession, many average Americans feel like they’re still climbing out of the last one. In a data brief released last week, the National Employment Law Project found that wages have declined since 2009 for most U.S. workers, when factoring in cost of living increases.

A full jobs recovery is at least two years away, according to an analysis by economist Elise Gould with the Economic Policy Institute. “Wage growth needs to be stronger—and consistently strong for a solid spell—before we can call this a healthy economy,” she wrote in a recent blog post.

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times: