A Bit of Sticker Shock Can Reduce Hospital Costs

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.


Sarah Kliff points to an interesting little study today. Conservatives have long suggested that one way to control healthcare costs is to give patients some “skin in the game.” That is, make them pay at least a portion of all bills, which gives them an incentive to shop around for lower prices and to undergo only treatment that genuinely seems worth the cost. But how about giving doctors some skin in the game? To test this, a team of researchers ran a trial at Johns Hopkins Hospital in which the price of certain procedures was displayed on a computer screen when doctors ordered them. Other procedures didn’t display a price.

The results were encouraging: Compared to a baseline period, doctors ordered nearly 10 percent fewer tests in the group of tests that displayed prices. They ordered 5 percent more tests in the group where prices remained hidden. They figure the hospital saved about $400,000 during the period of the study.

What I’d really like to see is a time series of this data. Did doctors suffer from a bit of sticker shock and cut down on tests at first, but then slowly ramp back up to their normal rate as the novelty wore off? Or did they cut back and stay at a lower level for the entire six months? I’d also be interested in whether there was any effect on patient outcomes during the course of the study.

In any case, it’s an intriguing study that deserves replication.

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate