One of the biggest problems in the US health care system today is the trend towards higher Market consolidation for taxpayers and suppliers. Mergers and acquisitions have created high payments by entities and suppliers controlling the disproportionate quantities of market power. The creation of these large paying entities by these suppliers has caused a number of concerns the possibility of monopoly and cartels, market distortion, reduction of competition and Increase profits at the expense of other stakeholders, including consumers.
Health markets are essentially a fierce battle in the wrestling arm. A key strategy for payers increasing profitability is forcing suppliers to accept less fees or reductions. They can also try to supplement their income by setting a higher premium for consumers, but competition or regulation can limit this possibility — similarly, suppliers.
They try to increase their financial resources (or profit) by attracting more patients and increase the amount of compensation they receive from the taxpayer concerned about them. Moreover, consumers want access to a wide range of affordable and quality products — providers of health services. Unfortunately, these goals can be mutually exclusive, creating tension between taxpayers, suppliers and consumers.
In all cases, there is no good or lousy consolidation between the payer and the supplier. Main suppliers have the means to invest in improving clinical care, but also have the capacity and an incentive to invest in community health that may be absent in fragmented deliveries system. Large bonds can be more administratively more active and have more ability to decline in the requirements of the supplier to increase the rate. However, the investigation showed the harmful effects of both consolidation of suppliers and taxpayers, and regulators and advocates should evaluate each proposal.
Consolidation varies from country to country depending on market and regulatory factors, and none simple effect between taxpayers and the population. Market consolidation can enable taxpayers and suppliers to pursue their goals at a disadvantage market participant, and both sides are encouraging development and search dominant position on the market. Taxpayers who achieve disproportionate market power in specific markets that have the ability to exclude demanding vendors from their networks fees, and therefore can force providers to give them lower rates (which can be forwarded to consumers for lower premiums or return costs). Suppliers who are getting disproportionate market power can result in higher prices because incorporating them into your networks will not be appealing to consumers and employers.
In the worst case, bonds and suppliers are consolidated, which allows, in the absence effective regulation, so that service providers require payment of high taxpayers while they allow taxpayers to transfer these costs to consumers and employers for high premiums without significant risks of losing customers they just do not have a lot of competitors). This one represents a cost outflow for the consumer, which usually has the smallest market power. In addition, consolidated entities can achieve significant political power, which makes them challenging to overcompensate excessive market power by imposing restrictions on market behavior.