I agree that the pricing model is wrong. Fee for service creates perverse incentives.
Having said that, though, unlike developing a new piece of software we have vast stores of data about procedures, complications, and outcomes from other patients who have already undergone the procedure. Surely there's a pricing model, if we are bound to fee for service, that could use this trove of existing data to provide more transparency.
I'd be happy with knowing pricing within half an order of magnitude.
A lot of that trove of existing data is locked up behind privacy law barriers, and there's no incentive for doing the work to strip out the PII and make it available for aggregate analysis. And since we're talking about the costs for performing medical treatments, the details that would need to be stripped out could be significant.
For example, if Procedure A tends to be more costly when the patient also needs Procedure B, that's significant. But if the aggregate information includes the fact that the same patient needed both A and B, that might be usable to identify the patient, and so the relationship can't be shared in the data.
The software development number is, arguably, almost completely unknowable. The healthcare pricing number is knowable (for some fuzzy value of knowable) if our society cared enough to do something about it. We don't, though.
Having said that, though, unlike developing a new piece of software we have vast stores of data about procedures, complications, and outcomes from other patients who have already undergone the procedure. Surely there's a pricing model, if we are bound to fee for service, that could use this trove of existing data to provide more transparency.
I'd be happy with knowing pricing within half an order of magnitude.