Donald Trump Did Something Right

As Donald Trump was fighting with Congress over the shutdown and funding for a border wall, his administration implemented a new rule that could be a game-changer for health care.

Starting this month, hospitals must publicly reveal the contents of their master price lists — called “chargemasters” — online. These are the prices that most patients never notice because their insurers negotiate them down or they appear buried as line items on hospital bills. What has long been shrouded in darkness is now being thrown into the light.

For the moment, these lists won’t seem very useful to the average patient — and they have been criticized for that reason. They are often hundreds of pages long, filled with medical codes and abbreviations. Each document is an overwhelming compendium listing a rack rate for every little item a hospital dispenses and every service it performs: A blood test for anemia. The price of lying in the operating suite and recovery room (billed in 15-minute intervals). The scalpel. The drill bit. The bag of IV salt water. The Tylenol pill. No item is too small to be bar coded and charged.

But don’t dismiss the lists as useless. Think of them as raw material to be mined for billing transparency and patient rights. For years, these prices have been a tightly guarded industrial secret. When advocates have tried to wrest them free, hospitals have argued that they are proprietary information. And, hospitals claim, these rates are irrelevant, since — after insurers whittle them down — no one actually pays them.

Of course, the argument is false, and our wallets know it.

First of all, hospitals routinely go after patients without insurance or whose insurer is not in their network. When Wanda Wickizer had a brain hemorrhage in 2013, a Virginia hospital billed her $286,000 after a 20 percent “uninsured” discount on a hospital bill of $357,000 — the list price, according to chargemaster charges. Medicare would have paid less than $100,000 for her treatment.

Second, those list prices form the starting point for negotiations, allowing hospitals and insurers to take credit for beneficence, when there is none.

I recently received an insurance statement for blood tests that were priced at $788.04; my insurer negotiated a “discount” of $725.35, for an agreed upon price of $62.69 “to help save you money.” My insurer’s price was around 8 percent of the charge. Since my 10 percent co-payment amounted to $6.27, my insurer happily informed me, “you saved 99 percent.”

.. Just as airlines have been shown to exaggerate flight times so they can boast about on-time arrivals, hospitals set prices crazy high so they can tout their generous discounts (while insurers tout their negotiating prowess).

Why Facebook Is Really Blocking the Ad Blockers

But Apple’s entire mobile platform is built on closed-system apps, not Web-based sites. Ads served within these apps cannot be blocked by anything, not even Apple’s own ad blockers. So, by blocking Web-based ads, Apple’s move would, in theory, drive businesses away from the open mobile Web, where the future of advertising is shaky, and toward apps, where there are fewer business variables. It’s not a coincidence, either, that Apple makes money from apps through both sales and advertising, while it earns nothing from its mobile browser.

.. What was true of Apple then is even more true of Facebook now. Over the last few years, Facebook has seen rapid growth within its mobile app, where blockers don’t work and it can easily control the ad experience in the same way that Apple can control the app experience. This means that features of advertising that frustrate readers are gone (malware, surprise screen takeovers, unexpected noise), but some of it is still very much there (tracking, data collection).

Facebook has now shut down ad blockers on nearly all of its domain—first on mobile apps and now on desktops. (Blocking still works on the mobile Web.) This suggests to publishers that Facebook is a safe space where the business of content can be more effectively protected, on the condition that they submit to being Facebook’s vassals.

.. Individual publications, and even some publishers, lack the resources to mount an all-out arms race against ad blockers, not least because they’re unlikely to attract engineering talent

..  Facebook’s ability to protect its revenue stream on the desktop version of its site only strengthens its position as a closed platform, a place where the user is powerless against its technical domination and will be gently served ads, whether they like it or not. This makes it an extremely safe bet as a place for brands to publish content. Instant Articles, while not yet a success, got a deluge of publishers on board because the model seemed straightforward, reliable, and immune to ad-block tampering.