Summary

The article advocates for increased transparency, accountability, and competition in healthcare to lower costs and improve quality, suggesting a shift towards a more open market or greater government oversight.

Abstract

The article titled "Healthcare Needs More Transparency" argues that the healthcare industry, particularly in cosmetic surgery, has seen some improvements in transparency and competition, leading to cost reductions. However, it posits that costs could be even lower without monopolistic practices in medical device manufacturing and repairs. The author criticizes the current system where consumers are led to believe that third parties are necessary to finance healthcare, which often results in unfair pricing due to corporate lobbying. The piece calls for a redefinition of healthcare terms, the establishment of full transparency and accountability, and the creation of a truly open market or a government-controlled system with price controls. It emphasizes the need to empower patients and independent medical practitioners, reduce micromanagement, and foster technologies that align with expert-validated healthcare domains, transcending socioeconomic and geographic boundaries.

Opinions

The author believes that the healthcare industry, particularly in cosmetic surgery, has some level of transparency but is not entirely free from monopolistic practices.
The cost of aesthetic procedures has dropped significantly due to a competitive environment where patients seek multiple consultations and receive free initial evaluations.
The article suggests that without the monopoly of device manufacturers on repairs and resale, the cost of medical procedures would decrease even further.
It criticizes the lack of complete transparency and sufficient government oversight, which contributes to higher healthcare costs.
The author argues against the notion that only third parties can afford to pay for healthcare, stating that this system is unfair and manipulated by corporate lobbying power.
The piece opposes the redefinition of healthcare terms by corporate interests, which mislead the public and create dependency on third-party entities.
It advocates for creating options for consumers, competition among stakeholders, and autonomy for physicians.
The author calls for high-level government oversight if the constitution respects the free-market model, or otherwise, a complete government takeover of healthcare.
The article emphasizes the need to establish full transparency, accountability, and a fully open market, or alternatively, a government overtake with price controls.
It suggests that the government should avoid negotiating with private entities to prevent monopolies and ensure an even distribution of healthcare resources.
The author insists on redefining healthcare in literal terms and preventing misleading definitions, distinguishing between health and healthcare.
The article promotes the empowerment of patients through decentralization and the authentication of power, as well as the empowerment of independent medical practitioners by reducing micromanagement.
It encourages the adoption of technologies and strategies aligned with healthcare domains validated by experts in each subdomain, aiming to create a healthcare system that transcends socioeconomic and geographic boundaries.

Healthcare Needs More Transparency

How to establish healthcare beyond borders.

Cosmetic surgery and a few other medical specialties have their own set of monopolies. However, they are more transparent (although not entirely) and are more subject to free-market competition.

Patients searching for the correct physician and better quality of service sometimes get at least 5–10 consultations from various experts, and the consultant provides a free initial evaluation most of the time. Such an environment has led to a significant drop in the cost of aesthetic procedures.

For example, when I started performing cosmetics procedures cost of a laser hair removal device would be as high as $200,000 with services of $500 per area treated. Now, one can purchase laser equipment for $50000 with the cost of treatment $50 per body area.

Nonetheless, the cost would have been even lower if the monopoly of device manufacturers on repairs and resell did not exist. The lack of complete transparency and uniform and high-level government oversight in the face of la know public demand is the primary cause of this major issue. However, some may argue that the government needs to take more action to twist the arms of the corporate governing bodies into lower costs and transparency through the legislative approach.

Later it would be an ideal approach if the country’s constitution stood for the entire closed market with the government having the full authority. But that is not what we have in this country today.

What we have today is the perfect example of diversion of consumer attention and piecemeal transparency coupled with unilateral incomplete accountability.

Patients are conditioned to the idea that only a 3rd party can afford to pay for our healthcare. We as taxpayers have no choice but to subsidize private entities and set a fair price based on corporate negotiations knowing that the same corporate entities have the upper hand of lobbying power with the same government. That is unfair!

Legislators’ efforts to create incomplete transparency from the birth of the product to the consumer will not only jeopardize the actual value but also create false accountability, prohibiting the delivery of quality products at an affordable cost to one group over the other.

Another challenge in giving control to corporate greed and making the citizens dependent on their initiatives is the redefining the terms like:

· Healthcare is equal to healthcare coverage

· Healthcare is a right vs. health is a right

· Insurance carriers are the leaders of the healthcare delivery model

· Healthcare administration requires 3rd party reimbursement knowledge

· Fair healthcare delivery must be by government hands

Whether the 3rd party is government or a private entity creating the illusion of people, we need a 3rd party to pay for medical expenses.

The healthcare solution is not a one-size-fits and by no means is about excluding government and or insurance carriers from healthcare. It is about creating options for consumers and patients, competition for stakeholders and autonomy for physicians, and high-level government oversight if our constitution is meant to respect and support the free-market model, otherwise, closing the market.

Establish transparency to its full extent.

Establish accountability based on the transparency

Establish a fully open market or the whole government overtake the authority with price control and control over the manufacturing, delivery, imports, and exports.

The government must stop negotiating with private entities in a capitalist system to avoid monopoly.

In a fair system, closing the political loopholes for corporations is necessary to ensure even distribution, total transparency, and competitiveness.

We must redefine healthcare in its literal terms and prevent misleading definitions as in false advertisement rules. The government must understand and adapt to the difference between health and healthcare.

Empower patients through decentralization and authentication power.

Empower independent medical practitioners by reducing micromanagement while holding them to equal transparency and accountability practices without creating unnecessary mandates that will only hinder clinical judgment.

And most of all, incentivize technologies and strategies that align with the healthcare domains validated by the experts in each subdomain—laying down the foundation for healthcare that goes beyond socioeconomic and geographic boundaries.