Online tools intended to make health care purchasing resemble “consumerism” have had little effect on improving transparency for patients.

Negative health consequences from costly care are referred to as financial toxicity and should be included in informed consent discussions.

Fragmentation in US health care delivery streams and shortcomings in formal quality measures mean that transparency could be more useful to policymakers and regulators than patients.

This article analyzes differences in prescription drug pricing transparency practices among 3 Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development member nations.

This article applies principlism to what a “shoppable service” model would demand of clinicians in practice.

Dr Jing Li joins Ethics Talk to discuss her article, coauthored with Dr Robert Tyler Braun, Sophia Kakarala, and Dr Holly G. Prigerson: “How Should Cost-Informed Goals of Care Decisions Be Facilitated at Life’s End?”

Dr Christopher Whaley joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article, coauthored with Dr Austin Frakt: “If Patients Don’t Use Available Health Service Pricing Information, Is Transparency Still Important?”

Dr Kevin Schulman joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article, coauthored with Dr Barak Richman: “Informed Consent as a Means of Acknowledging and Avoiding Financial Toxicity as Iatrogenic Harm.”

Dr Harold A. Pollack joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article: “Necessity for and Limitations of Price Transparency in American Health Care.”

Dr Sherry Glied joins Ethics Talk to discuss her article, coauthored with Grace Kim: “Which Price Should Be Transparent and Why?”