A passage in this Courant article helps serve as a reminder of some of the complexities involved for those who seek to increase availability of health care by reducing costs:
But [Dempsey Hospital in Farmington] is now an integral part of UConn’s sprawling teaching and research complex, and officials say it is too small to remain economically viable and attract top-flight faculty. Building a new hospital is necessary for Dempsey’s long-term survival, officials said.
But foes of the new hospital say it will spur a sort of medical arms race as they seek to upgrade their own facilities and launch specialty clinics in suburban towns to compete for affluent Farmington Valley patients.
And that might actually hurt consumers, they said. The expense will drive up health insurance costs to consumers and businesses as hospitals recoup their investment. And these changes will do nothing to improve quality of care for the poor, they say.
The article hints elsewhere that some of these concerns also stem on the potential for duplication of specialty practices/clinics.
It’s been clear to me for some time that if American society is really serious about increasing availability of health care and/or controlling health care cost inflation, it’s going to have to address the fact that redundancy in certain services at different hospitals introduces an inefficiency into the market. Either we pay more to fund that redundancy, or we have to learn that we may have to go to facilities other than the ones we might prefer, which might be farther away, and will likely have longer waiting times to get in.
While those who can’t afford…or soon won’t be able to afford…health care might accept that as a reasonable trade-off, the affluent side of American society has never struck me as having much patience or tolerance for waiting in a queue with the huddled masses.