Rendered at 21:53:38 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
vanc_cefepime 2 hours ago [-]
“The algorithm cannot say no, however. If it finds problems, it sends the request for review to a team of in-house nurses and doctors who consult company medical guidelines. Only doctors can issue a final denial.”
As a physician, I’ve had to speak to these so called “peers” in a peer to peer denials with both my clinic and hospital setting. They are usually people who aren’t physicians as a first line of their defense, ie therapist, nurses, etc. This weeds out the providers who either don’t care about the patient denial and blindly accept the denial, or patient has to take matters in their own hands just to get the care they need/deserve. Or worse, in the hospital that means the patient gets hit with a huge bill (already an insane number in the US even with insurance, so don’t get me started on this) or it gets delegated to another provider who has to deal with it. Quite often patients get denied medical and rehab services, esp after something debilitating like a stroke, trauma/accident, etc. and at that point the peer to peer is to weed the provider out. Usually someone will tell the patient you’ve been denied, either go home without the services they need or you fight it.
I fight it. Can’t count the number of times I’ve spoken to someone not in the field of medicine or if they are, not my field of medicine (both Family/Hospital Medicine). Often I’m fighting with an MD or “practitioner” who is some other field like a gynecologist about hospital medicine services or rehab. I’ve even had the pleasure of talking to a physical therapist and didn’t let me get a word in as we began the peer to peer. I now start of by asking for their credentials and field of speciality and demand a peer of my field to do the denying if they are so adamant about it “not being medically necessary”.
I have so much to say and could write a book about it. I just wish I had the money and connections to actually change the state of US of Corporate Medicine.
zardo 2 hours ago [-]
I feel like this should really be something people should lose their license over.
By deeming something not medically necessary they are (in my opinion) effectively practicing medicine. If they aren't qualified to practice that specialty, or aren't acting in the patients interest we should really be getting malpractice suits on them and stripping medical licenses.
nradov 21 minutes ago [-]
Legally speaking the health plan employee isn't practicing medicine in that circumstance. The requesting provider is still free to treat the patient, they just won't be reimbursed by the health plan. The requesting provider can do it for free, or the patient can pay cash. I do understand that those aren't realistic options in most cases, I'm just explaining the legal distinction.
Phlebsy 11 minutes ago [-]
Right? Lawyers can get into deep shit if they misrepresent their ability to well, represent a client on a case outside of their area of competence. How are medical professionals that often won't even tell you what they think about a test result and refer you to a specialist to actually get a diagnosis able to ethically represent what a patient actually needs?
hydrogen7800 9 minutes ago [-]
This is good to hear. My mother was a PA for a private practice and also would often call the insurance providers to challenge denials, often from people far from the relevant specialty. By her accounts she was usually able to reverse the denials.
OptionOfT 2 hours ago [-]
As someone who needs expensive medication, thank you. I appreciate it.
2 questions:
* This time, is it paid? Is it billable? Is it part of the visit I pay for?
* What can I - as a patient - do to make this process easier?
ceejayoz 2 hours ago [-]
It's unpaid time, but that'll just get factored into the rates charged for billable things like appointments and procedures.
paulddraper 1 hours ago [-]
It's like any time spend on billing or administrative work, it's baked into the costs. (Administrative costs is a big component of rising healthcare costs.)
Depending on the issue, the patient may be needed to provide supporting paperwork, like previous diagnoses or treatment for providers. Other than that, not really, short of taking legal action.
iugtmkbdfil834 32 minutes ago [-]
First off, thank you for taking the time to do it. I know most people don't agree on many things today, but most Americans agree the current system is stacked against them. Not to search very far, I have good insurance and I still have to deal with things that border on criminal.
Two, that book may be a good idea:D
rocketpastsix 42 minutes ago [-]
seriously consider that book if you can fill it up with these types of stories. A book like this could be a huge hit, get this issue even more spotlight and maybe some fixes.
jmspamerton 2 hours ago [-]
Physician and Hospital resources is a real zero sum game, how do you fairly regulate the medical landscape so those who's lives will benefit most from a procedure will receive the procedure?
Who decides this? You?
Should we allow everyone in the world who needs a procedure to receive one free and get ahead in line for Americans who need the same procedure? That's what the current climate looks like with unbridaled immigration under progressives.
These are hard questions. What's the answer?
hdgvhicv 26 seconds ago [-]
Every other country seems to solve it
singleshot_ 6 minutes ago [-]
These are actually pretty easy questions as long as you’re not an asshole.
throwanem 1 hours ago [-]
You want to try to change things? Great. So write the book!
tempaccount5050 2 hours ago [-]
In the early 2000s I got a job right out of highschool working at a Blue Cross Blue Shields call center. I thought it was going to be customer service but it was insurance claims. Training was supposed to be 6 weeks but they pushed me live after just 2. I had no idea what I was doing. After floundering for a couple weeks trying to learn to basically be a fuckin doctor, I just started approving everything. "Patient needs emergency surgery for X" "Approved". The whole experience was completely insane.
vjvjvjvjghv 15 minutes ago [-]
“ I just started approving everything. "Patient needs emergency surgery for X" "Approved".”
Did they ding you for bad performance after a while? Your job was to maximize denials, not approvals.
kjs3 35 minutes ago [-]
That was the correct course of action.
evulhotdog 1 hours ago [-]
Thank you for your service!
CalChris 1 hours ago [-]
Medicare has a similar issue. When you sign up at 65, you have to make a first big decision, Traditional Medicare (yay!) or private Medicare Advantage (boo!).
Traditional Medicare consists of Part A (hospitals), Part B (doctors) and Part D (drugs). Part A+B don't cover everything so you have a Medigap plan. I have Plan G which has very little paperwork. All up, I spend about $400/mo and I'm very happy with A+B+G+D.
With Medicare Advantage you sign over your Medicare rights+benefits to a private insurer. This may save you some money, especially early on. In fairness, not really a lot and the $0/mo plans are a scam. With Medicare Advantage, you will then have to argue with an insurance company for the rest of your life. You'll have to deal with preauthorizations and a restricted network.
With Traditional Medicare, what's covered is spelled out pretty clearly ahead of time. Docs know it. You know it. There's literally an app for that. With Medicare Advantage, medically necessary is at the discretion of the private insurance company.
Here is the scenario from a relative: he had a heart event which ended up needing a stent. He had to argue with Kaiser while this was going on. Kaiser is 240,000 people. He is one.
Medicare Advantage is very profitable.
It is possible to switch back from MA to TM which really revolves around your Medigap plan. You are guaranteed issue for Medigap plans for about 3 months before/after you turn 65. After that, you will have to undergo medical underwriting.
Animats 47 minutes ago [-]
Yes.
"Medicare Advantage" = HMO. All the usual HMO problems.
The best Medigap plan is Plan F, which is no longer available to new subscribers.
"Discontinuation of Medicare Plan F was a strategic decision aimed at promoting responsible healthcare spending and ensuring the financial sustainability of the Medicare program." It covers just about everything Medicare doesn't pay, including the various deductibles Medicare has. If Medicare covered Medicare's part, the Plan F provider has to pay their part. They don't get to question it. I don't even see hospital bills, just statements that it's been paid for.
Plan G is one step down from that.
wrs 1 hours ago [-]
The theory behind Medicare Advantage is that it would cost the government less than traditional Medicare because the private insurer would be more efficient. Guess what happened.
rwarren63 53 minutes ago [-]
I think the logic of running a more efficient company is true - they are making more money operating them than the government can/is.
The insurers are such behemoths and so largely vertically integrated it is controlling the system instead of improving it.
Notice how there is rarely ever any new competition in the health insurance space to drive down pricing.
rwarren63 58 minutes ago [-]
If you look at any health insurers profit split right now they are making all of their gains on medicare advantage.
ro_bit 14 minutes ago [-]
> In 2022, Carelon settled a lawsuit for $13 million that alleged the company, then called AIM, had used a variety of techniques to avoid approving coverage requests. Among them: The company set its fax machines to receive only 5 to 10 pages.
Who are the people who sleep at night after designing these policies?
15 minutes ago [-]
khriss 1 hours ago [-]
The worst part, simultaneously soul crushing and apocalyptic rage inducing is that we get these outcomes after spending more per capita on healthcare than pretty much any country on the planet.
ceejayoz 1 hours ago [-]
Worse, we spend more in tax dollars on it than any other country total, and then add on the private spending on top. We do the worst of both worlds.
> Connecticut’s Insurance Department recently reviewed EviCore and Carelon. It found no problems with Carelon. EviCore was fined $16,000 this year for more than 77 violations found in a review of 196 files.
$16k is such a low fine that it’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad. fines should be increased to actually represent a threat to the company - maybe as a % of yearly profit?
our system is so fucked dude
markvdb 3 minutes ago [-]
Multiplier times price of necessary care denied? One can dream.
How do you get accountable people in charge of healthcare policy?
ChrisMarshallNY 11 minutes ago [-]
I am a member of a community that had an extremely high rate of HIV infection, and watched dozens of people die, in the 1990s. It was pretty awful.
I found out that many insurance companies deliberately delayed approving procedures, in the hope that it would kill the patient.
back then, there was no AI. The decisions were made by humans.
Sometimes, people suck.
cyanydeez 2 hours ago [-]
Medically speak, I'm sure we can all find several businesses that arn't necessary.
voicedYoda 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
thinkingtoilet 1 hours ago [-]
yes... sarcasm...
Totally unrelated. In traditional stories, as anyone ever been upset when the knight slays the dragon at the end because the dragon was hoarding all the gold and killing the townspeople? I was never upset when the dragon got slayed.
EDIT: Yeesh. I guess people here really like it when the dragon wins. Oh well. I guess people have to die so the dragon can hoard the wealth.
butvacuum 21 minutes ago [-]
have they managed to wrangle a jury yet?
cucumber3732842 21 minutes ago [-]
Not even. Just look at it by the numbers. If one in every 10k, 20k, IDK but surely you don't even need 1:1k, life alteringly aggrieved people threw what was left of their lives away getting even instead of just taking it the sheer economics would make most of the bad stuff stop.
And make no mistake, this applies to just about everything, not just medical.
The suffering in society always reaches equilibrium with the pushback and modern people are very, very, very docile so we're made to suffer a lot.
spankibalt 1 hours ago [-]
Geiz-ist-geil-healthcare is, according to many election results anyway, what most US citizens want; everything else is communism/socialism/woke/leftist/[...].
d_burfoot 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
f33d5173 2 hours ago [-]
I think the vast majority of people agree on the generalities and care enough about solving the issue to be able to come to an agreement on the particulars. The problem is that the people who get rich off the current system won't agree to any solution that reduces their profits, and have thus far managed to fillibuster attempts at such a solution through a combination of buying politicians and propagandizing certain segments of the population into rejecting solutions that would benefit them.
cucumber3732842 33 minutes ago [-]
Healthcare is ~17% GDP
Slavery was estimated at ~12% and "hey, you need to lose a few % of your margin and actually pay those people" started a war.
Now, there's an argument to be made about ideology, concentration of industry, etc. But the fact remains that you cannot make a large fraction of the country take a haircut without causing strife.
The only way to fix this "nicely" at this point is to boil the frog over decades.
jmspamerton 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ceejayoz 1 hours ago [-]
> It's not a money probelm, it's a resources problem.
Most people would consider money a resource, and quite a few rural hospitals are closing because of a lack of that specific resource.
> you'll discover how you really DONT want the government to tell you which patients to serve
Yeah, wait until you hear about private for-profit insurers doing that instead.
jmspamerton 1 hours ago [-]
As an adult, i deal with private for-profit insurers all the time. If you're under 26, you've probably never paid a medical bill.
It's a money problem because the medicare doesn't pay enough to hosptals, and boomers are all on medicare.
So your government run healthcare is destorying rural hospitals.
ceejayoz 1 hours ago [-]
> If you're under 26, you've probably never paid a medical bill.
Sure you have. Copays and deductibles are still a thing. I wish my kids didn't have medical bills!
outside1234 1 hours ago [-]
Honestly, after stories like these, I don't want a corporation telling me which patients to serve even more. At least government is theoretically accountable for their decisions.
selectodude 2 hours ago [-]
As long as you accept the outcome of “drop dead” when something happens to you.
Problem is you’ll go right to the emergency room when you have a heart attack.
expedition32 1 hours ago [-]
Yep they will move to California the moment they get cancer.
Never trust a libertarian.
ervine 2 hours ago [-]
What's a libertarians take on how health care should work? Completely privatized, completely socialized, somewhere in between?
1 hours ago [-]
jmspamerton 1 hours ago [-]
The fact that the hospital doesn't know what a procedure costs (they make it up based on deals with medicare, medicaid, and individual insurance companies) should give you a hint.
Yes, the patient needs skin in the game. People need to take care of their own health. Most procedures are given to grossly unhealthy people.
Yes, completely privatize it. Make people pay for their care so their daily decisions are weighed against what affect it will have on their overall health.
vjvjvjvjghv 10 minutes ago [-]
“ The fact that the hospital doesn't know what a procedure costs (they make it up based on deals with medicare, medicaid, and individual insurance companies) should give you a hint.”
The hint here is that the random pricing needs to stop. Same procedure for the same price. No market can work if participants don’t know the actual price. Insurance and hospitals probably have a very good idea but patients are being kept totally in the dark. You are expected to just accept what this opaque machinery comes up with.
ceejayoz 1 hours ago [-]
> Most procedures are given to grossly unhealthy people.
Well, yeah. That's the idea behind "medically necessary". We don't do elective heart transplants on healthy people for funsies.
jmspamerton 1 hours ago [-]
no, they were unhealthy a long time before they entered the clinic. Fat, pasty people that don't leave their couch make up 80% of patients.
datsci_est_2015 1 hours ago [-]
“I’ll put out this fire for you if you pay me $5000”
outside1234 1 hours ago [-]
"I don't want to be forced to pay for insurance, but will move to a state with subsidized insurance the second I need it."
As a physician, I’ve had to speak to these so called “peers” in a peer to peer denials with both my clinic and hospital setting. They are usually people who aren’t physicians as a first line of their defense, ie therapist, nurses, etc. This weeds out the providers who either don’t care about the patient denial and blindly accept the denial, or patient has to take matters in their own hands just to get the care they need/deserve. Or worse, in the hospital that means the patient gets hit with a huge bill (already an insane number in the US even with insurance, so don’t get me started on this) or it gets delegated to another provider who has to deal with it. Quite often patients get denied medical and rehab services, esp after something debilitating like a stroke, trauma/accident, etc. and at that point the peer to peer is to weed the provider out. Usually someone will tell the patient you’ve been denied, either go home without the services they need or you fight it.
I fight it. Can’t count the number of times I’ve spoken to someone not in the field of medicine or if they are, not my field of medicine (both Family/Hospital Medicine). Often I’m fighting with an MD or “practitioner” who is some other field like a gynecologist about hospital medicine services or rehab. I’ve even had the pleasure of talking to a physical therapist and didn’t let me get a word in as we began the peer to peer. I now start of by asking for their credentials and field of speciality and demand a peer of my field to do the denying if they are so adamant about it “not being medically necessary”.
I have so much to say and could write a book about it. I just wish I had the money and connections to actually change the state of US of Corporate Medicine.
By deeming something not medically necessary they are (in my opinion) effectively practicing medicine. If they aren't qualified to practice that specialty, or aren't acting in the patients interest we should really be getting malpractice suits on them and stripping medical licenses.
2 questions:
Depending on the issue, the patient may be needed to provide supporting paperwork, like previous diagnoses or treatment for providers. Other than that, not really, short of taking legal action.
Two, that book may be a good idea:D
Who decides this? You?
Should we allow everyone in the world who needs a procedure to receive one free and get ahead in line for Americans who need the same procedure? That's what the current climate looks like with unbridaled immigration under progressives.
These are hard questions. What's the answer?
Did they ding you for bad performance after a while? Your job was to maximize denials, not approvals.
Traditional Medicare consists of Part A (hospitals), Part B (doctors) and Part D (drugs). Part A+B don't cover everything so you have a Medigap plan. I have Plan G which has very little paperwork. All up, I spend about $400/mo and I'm very happy with A+B+G+D.
With Medicare Advantage you sign over your Medicare rights+benefits to a private insurer. This may save you some money, especially early on. In fairness, not really a lot and the $0/mo plans are a scam. With Medicare Advantage, you will then have to argue with an insurance company for the rest of your life. You'll have to deal with preauthorizations and a restricted network.
With Traditional Medicare, what's covered is spelled out pretty clearly ahead of time. Docs know it. You know it. There's literally an app for that. With Medicare Advantage, medically necessary is at the discretion of the private insurance company.
Here is the scenario from a relative: he had a heart event which ended up needing a stent. He had to argue with Kaiser while this was going on. Kaiser is 240,000 people. He is one.
Medicare Advantage is very profitable.
It is possible to switch back from MA to TM which really revolves around your Medigap plan. You are guaranteed issue for Medigap plans for about 3 months before/after you turn 65. After that, you will have to undergo medical underwriting.
"Medicare Advantage" = HMO. All the usual HMO problems.
The best Medigap plan is Plan F, which is no longer available to new subscribers. "Discontinuation of Medicare Plan F was a strategic decision aimed at promoting responsible healthcare spending and ensuring the financial sustainability of the Medicare program." It covers just about everything Medicare doesn't pay, including the various deductibles Medicare has. If Medicare covered Medicare's part, the Plan F provider has to pay their part. They don't get to question it. I don't even see hospital bills, just statements that it's been paid for.
Plan G is one step down from that.
The insurers are such behemoths and so largely vertically integrated it is controlling the system instead of improving it.
Notice how there is rarely ever any new competition in the health insurance space to drive down pricing.
Who are the people who sleep at night after designing these policies?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OECD_health_expendit...
(And we’re middling in outcomes!)
> Connecticut’s Insurance Department recently reviewed EviCore and Carelon. It found no problems with Carelon. EviCore was fined $16,000 this year for more than 77 violations found in a review of 196 files.
$16k is such a low fine that it’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad. fines should be increased to actually represent a threat to the company - maybe as a % of yearly profit?
our system is so fucked dude
How do you get accountable people in charge of healthcare policy?
I found out that many insurance companies deliberately delayed approving procedures, in the hope that it would kill the patient.
back then, there was no AI. The decisions were made by humans.
Sometimes, people suck.
Totally unrelated. In traditional stories, as anyone ever been upset when the knight slays the dragon at the end because the dragon was hoarding all the gold and killing the townspeople? I was never upset when the dragon got slayed.
EDIT: Yeesh. I guess people here really like it when the dragon wins. Oh well. I guess people have to die so the dragon can hoard the wealth.
And make no mistake, this applies to just about everything, not just medical.
The suffering in society always reaches equilibrium with the pushback and modern people are very, very, very docile so we're made to suffer a lot.
Slavery was estimated at ~12% and "hey, you need to lose a few % of your margin and actually pay those people" started a war.
Now, there's an argument to be made about ideology, concentration of industry, etc. But the fact remains that you cannot make a large fraction of the country take a haircut without causing strife.
The only way to fix this "nicely" at this point is to boil the frog over decades.
Most people would consider money a resource, and quite a few rural hospitals are closing because of a lack of that specific resource.
> you'll discover how you really DONT want the government to tell you which patients to serve
Yeah, wait until you hear about private for-profit insurers doing that instead.
It's a money problem because the medicare doesn't pay enough to hosptals, and boomers are all on medicare.
So your government run healthcare is destorying rural hospitals.
Sure you have. Copays and deductibles are still a thing. I wish my kids didn't have medical bills!
Problem is you’ll go right to the emergency room when you have a heart attack.
Yes, the patient needs skin in the game. People need to take care of their own health. Most procedures are given to grossly unhealthy people.
Yes, completely privatize it. Make people pay for their care so their daily decisions are weighed against what affect it will have on their overall health.
The hint here is that the random pricing needs to stop. Same procedure for the same price. No market can work if participants don’t know the actual price. Insurance and hospitals probably have a very good idea but patients are being kept totally in the dark. You are expected to just accept what this opaque machinery comes up with.
Well, yeah. That's the idea behind "medically necessary". We don't do elective heart transplants on healthy people for funsies.