"They cite an example where private insurance paid 100x the Medicare rate"

Is that the line "If the surgery had been for a Medicare patient, the assistant would have been permitted to bill only 16 percent of the primary surgeon’s fee"?

If so, Dr. Mu received the $117,000 as a private check from Mr. Drier, and not from a private insurance company. There's nothing which says that Dr. Mu wouldn't have accepted the lower Medicare rate, or that someone else would have been the assistant if Dr. Mu's primary interest was the extra income, or that a private insurance company would had other preconditions in place to prevent a $117,000 bill. It's hard to have an idea in part because Dr. Mu did not respond.

The only other 100x I can find is the out-of-network vs. in-network bills for a muscle and skin graft. But that's not the Medicare rate.

"Probably not very lucrative" is quite far from "subsidizing the public system." If the doctor makes $120K/year with Medicare patients only, and $500K/year with only non-Medicare patients, and the hospital is profitable both ways, then where's the subsidy? While an extra $380K/year is very lucrative.

If what you are saying is true, then there should be a mass wave of hospitals and doctors which don't accept Medicare. While some hospitals and clinics don't accept Medicare, they are relatively few. In fact, hospitals and medical centers will advertise that they accept Medicare. For example, this billboard for a clinic - http://www.yourwestvalley.com/topstory/article_73ac64db-fc44... .

It's very hard for me to accept that the payment-to-cost ratio chart you linked to is meaningful. That appears to be the average cost across everyone. A better chart would be the cost of Medicare treatment vs. the reimbursement by Medicare, and the same for the private insurers. Otherwise, this could be showing that Medicare does a better job of cost containment than private insurers, so that private insurers end up paying for more medically needless but profitable procedures than Medicare. (For example, http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/22/2/230.full argues that Medicare is better at cost containment than private insurers.)

Instead, I find papers like "How Much Do Hospitals Cost Shift? A Review of the Evidence" at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160596/ more persuasive than that chart.

> Most of the analyses and commentary based on descriptive, industrywide hospital payment-to-cost margins by payer provide a false impression that cost shifting is a large and pervasive phenomenon. More careful theoretical and empirical examinations suggest that cost shifting can and has occurred, but usually at a relatively low rate. Margin changes also are strongly influenced by the evolution of hospital and health plan market structures and changes in underlying costs.

Regarding newspapers, I'm saying that you are getting peeved because you don't understand how newspapers work. The old phrases are "if it bleeds, it leads" and "When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news." and "You never read about a plane that did not crash."

People read a newspaper in part because they want crazy outliers. The good papers try to fit it in a larger context, biased of course by the overall ideology of the editors and writers. (Eg, the WSJ is pro-market.) But complaining about the lack of complete context and details in a newspaper article is like complaining that the sky is blue.