• Remmy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    tl;dr: It doesn’t.

  • phoenixz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    15 hours ago

    So here is a question:

    A medical professional examined the person IN PERSON and has a requirement.

    In comes the insurance to tell you your doctor is wrong and that you’re perfectly fine, your doctor is basically lying to you.

    Question: how the fuck did any of this ever become legal?

    • overcast5348@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      You do need some checks and balances because what’s to stop a hospital from profiting off the insurance companies by asking for a CT scan/whatever of every single patient just because they can.

      I suppose we could have the government run the hospitals too. But noooooo, that’s never going to work out because communism or something.

      Maybe we should try effective altruism and accelerationism instead? Let’s just hand over all our money to a few tech bros and then we can go beg them to pay for the scans. And if they don’t pay for it, surely someone will come up with a cheaper technology to do the same. Yes, that’ll definitely work.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Yes, it’s clear why it’s legal and necessary to some extent. In a for-profit system, a doctor’s office or hospital, every procedure or test the doctor can order (and have the patient pay for) will generate profit. Doctors have an incentive to order as many tests as possible. I assume that most doctors are somewhat honorable and won’t abuse this too much, but they’ll probably still err on the side of ordering as many tests as possible not necessarily because of profits, but because more tests gives them more information.

        Meanwhile, in a for-profit system, an insurance company will generate the most profit by agreeing to as few tests and procedures as possible. So, they will have an adversarial relationship with doctors and will try to arrange as few tests and procedures as possible. My guess is that the average insurance company is less ethical than the average doctor, so they’re probably more likely to refuse to allow tests that are actually medically necessary.

        In a sane system, there would be a neutral referee, the government, who would resolve disputes and severely punish any actor in the system that was behaving badly. But, AFAIK that only rarely happens in the US, where the idea is that the “invisible hand of the free market” will magically make it all work.

        • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          Doctors do not directly profit from ordering tests. They get paid whether they order a test or not.

          You want to know who profits from over testing? Quest Diagnostics.

          https://bergermontague.com/quest-diagnostics-pay-1-79-million-settle-false-claims

          These guys literally defrauded the government, but everyone points their fingers at poor people, doctors, liberals, ethnic minorities, lgtbq people, ect. The problem is corrupt businesses and their CEO’s hoovering up as much money as they can so they can shove it up their ass.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 hours ago

        You could just get rid of the for-profit medical industry entirely and then there would be no incentive to over treat patients.

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Prior authorization should 100% be outlawed. It’s either insurance adjusters practicing medicine without a license, or insurance doctors making diagnoses without examining a patient, both of which are unethical or illegal.

    Though I think the real solution is a system where every time a prior authorization denial is overruled by the DOO or a court, the insurance company has to pay punitive damages of at least $200,000 to the patient.

  • sevan
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    Also, there’s this common “feature”:

    Dr: “You need this procedure.”

    Me: “How much will it cost me?”

    Office Manager: “I won’t know until I bill your insurance and find out if it is covered.”

    Me: “What is the cash price I would pay you if it isn’t covered by insurance.”

    Office Manager: “I have no idea.”

    • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I’m actually ok with this system, but only because I throw the bills away after

    • gallopingsnail@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Actually, since January 2022, you have the right to request a good faith estimate for services from healthcare providers if you’re not billing insurance.

      source

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I’d like to see a law that says you get a complete and correct bill in 3 months or less as well. I avoid getting healthcare because even though I have insurance, every single time I’ve gone, the billing gets fucked up and I don’t find out about it until 6 months, or even up to 2 years later, and I’m on the hook for that. It ought to be law, that if your office is so fucked up that you can’t produce a correct bill for services in 3 months and deliver it to your customer, then you should have to nullify it.

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Last time my doctor had to bill my insurance he said he would just run it immediately, because apparently “routine denial” is a thing where they just automatically deny it because if you really need it the doctor will then have his office try again with more justifications. He hated this a lot, because it basically meant he had to just assume first denial for no real reason and then his staff had to take the time to almost always go back and resubmit. He said sometimes he would submit it with the info, it would be denied, and then he would resubmit it two more times and suddenly it would be approved.

    Like seriously, what the fuck. But only does that hold up necessary care, it also makes doctors do more bureaucratic work and hire more staff, which, of course, makes medicine more expensive. Brilliant.

  • Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    18 hours ago

    They hire doctors who can’t handle being practicing doctors to prop up their delusions. I’ve only had one on the line in a dispute and he acted quite offended when I asked for his license to prove he was a real doctor. Turns out he was barely a doctor at all. He decided instead of practicing medicine and killing people he would work for a insurance company and kill them that way.

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    19 hours ago

    My insurance that I pay a ridiculous sum of money for has started doing this neat new thing. When the doctor orders imaging, they mark it as “requested more information but never received any”, and reject the claim. They don’t actually request any additional information, and they ignore me when I contest their decision. So glad that I pay like $400 per month for this coverage.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I file a complaint with the department of insurance instantly when they deny anything. I don’t negotiate with them for 3 months first, I jump straight to sicking the Feds on them and my doctors have always provided me every bit of data I need and cheered me on.

      And I’ve won every time. It annoys me that I have to do it, but I enjoy that it costs the insurance extra every time.

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      Yes, I think that’s exactly what my doctor was trying to describe. He said if they’re at that point, they basically have to guess what information they’re looking for other than “I’m a qualified physician that has run diagnostic tests and determined this is the best course of treatment. Here are those tests and why it indicates X and therefore requires Y.”

      I’ve had to do unnecessary labs to prove an ailment wasn’t something else that some person hundreds or thousands of miles away thought it might be.

      If you think you hate insurance companies, find an honest doctor and ask them what they think of the US Healthcare system and health insurance. I’ve never seen a doctor so worked up and angry than when discussing the current medical system.

      Edit: this guy is fun to watch on this topic: https://youtu.be/s33AVskz3T8?si=Qqx2nAJjguMOxnNL

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        It’s like calling your ISP and you can see the fucking wire dangling down from the pole but they won’t continue unless you turn the modem off and on first.

        I worked in Pharmacy claims remediation for a while. Fun times. Never again. Why the fuck is my barely-above-minimum-wage-ass the one that has to tell medicaid that little Timmy is gonna die if he doesn’t get his chemo?

        • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Because it’s more profitable if Timmy dies. Why would they want effective, highly paid workers doing the job of trying to cut into their bottom line?

          • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            17 hours ago

            It’s a modern war for a modern economy.

            Instead of pitting the poor and destitute soldiers of opposing countries against each other in bloody combat, we have opposing corporations (in my case, the pharmacy and the insurance company) pitting their minimum-wage phone-jockeys against each other in a battle of wits when death is on the line.

            Fortunately for our patients, I’m part Sicilian.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              16 hours ago

              Fortunately for our patients, I’m part Sicilian.

              Thank you for your service o7

              No, unironically though, helpful folks in the healthcare industry despite the system’s labyrinthine and hellish construction have kept me from several major breakdowns. You going to bat for the patients has likely saved at least one person from a psych ward visit.

  • TommySalami@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    126
    ·
    1 day ago

    I work for a neurologist practice, and the amount I have to argue with insurance (and inevitably have to get the neurologist on the phone to directly request something for many) is insane. A good chunk of my job isn’t providing care, but arguing with insurance that the care is necessary. These companies are actively delaying patient care, and try to blame the physician whenever possible.

    Wildly infuriating, especially when the denials are worded along the lines of “we reviewed this, and don’t consider it medically necessary”. Motherfucker, a doctor said it was necessary and listed the clinical reasons why this test or procedure would be beneficial. Nothing has radicalized me for universal healthcare more than working in healthcare.

    • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      22 hours ago

      How is that even legal? How is someone who hasn’t examined the patient and isn’t their physician allowed to make treatment decisions? If they even have the necessary qualifications.

      • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Because of money!

        Every time you see something that feels illegal but isn’t, or that makes no sense in general, look for the money trail. There’s always one, and it always leads to the explanation.

        In this case, insurance companies have made such an absolute ass ton of money by killing off their customers that they have become a political entity. They now use their deep pockets to lobby politicians to keep their scam legal.

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        They’re technically not making treatment decisions, they’re making payment decisions about treatment decisions. Effectively it’s a distinction without a difference though. And it’s usually a “doctor” working for the healthcare company rubber stamping the denials. It’s a thoroughly shitty system.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      21 hours ago

      People love to shit on the VA, because they’re the largest American healthcare provider in the country so there’s a lot of bad stories

      But my last MRI went like this:

      Doctor: you need an MRI, let me check if it’s open. (Less than a minute on laptop). Ok, go down to room ____ and they can get you in now.

      There’s a huge up front cost for that machine, so for profit hospitals went everyone to use it to make the money back, and insurance wants no one to use it so they don’t have to pay.

      Take insurance out of the picture, take the hospital trying to make money out of the picture. And it’s really that easy. No one pushes for unnecessary tests, no one tries to prevent necessary tests. And there’s a huge push towards preventive medicine, because it’s cheaper to catch shit early.

      We already pay more than what it would cost, it’s just the healthcare industry donates to both parties, so as long as both standards are “at least they’re not the other team” shits never going to get fixed.

      If we hold higher standards than that, it won’t take many election cycles to get change to actually happen

      • Landless2029@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        It’s cheaper to catch shit early.

        This is a huge takeaway. Insurance doesn’t care about your longevity, health, quality of life or even long term costs.

        People hop insurance providers all the time so the companies are literally focused on profits quarter by quarter.

    • pancakes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      24 hours ago

      On the flip side, I can’t imagine being the person arguing for the insurance companies makes them a better or happy person in the long term. Being a devil’s henchman, over time it must destroy important parts of them like empathy, trust in people, and their basic human decency. Virtues that are needed now more than ever in society.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I expect it’s like any call center - the computer spits out a result and they have a script to follow, and are not allowed to stray from the script

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        This part isnt brought up enough. You can take more severe examples, folks working in slaughter houses, military translators marking targets based on vague phrasing, and they have well documented negative effects on people who work those jobs in general.

        Theres no reason to think someone working an insurance claims job might not develop the same type of problems if they feel they are helping cause harm, even if to a lesser degree.

    • USNWoodwork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I feel like we’re getting to the point that this needs to be an election deciding issue. It won’t be this upcoming election, but probably the one after where the presidency isn’t on the line. We need to ignore republican/democrat talking points and elect based on a will to completely revamp the system. Obama tried but it didn’t go far enough. Once its bad enough that people are willing to cross party lines to fix it, then you’ll see change, and I (probably too optimistically) think we’re almost there.

    • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      22 hours ago

      And some doctors themselves will be hesitant to give care that might not be provably required beyond all doubt but is objectively prudent.

    • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Hospitals should unionize and sue the the ever-loving shit out of insurance companies for lost time. Not like our neoliberal politicians are going to do anything about it.

  • Gestrid
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Had surgery to correct an underbite a few years ago after prepping for it with braces for years. For context, I was still young enough to be on my parents’ insurance. The surgery involved moving my upper jaw forward and my lower jaw back because the underbite was so severe. The insurance denied the claim. My parents (I love them so much for this) decided beforehand that, if the claim and the appeal were denied, they would instead “gift” me the money out of their own retirement savings and have me pay for it. The procedure alone cost, I believe, $16k out of pocket. (I don’t remember the specific reason why they gifted me the money instead of paying for it outright.)

    • Magicalus@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      16 hours ago

      It might be that you HAD to be the one to pay for it. When I hit a certain age, all the insurance cheques were made out to me, and I had to deposit them and transfer the money to my parents.

      (Though this was insurance for therapy, so maybe it’s different?)

      • Gestrid
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Insurance wasn’t involved when it came time to pay for the surgery. By then, they’d already denied the claim and the appeal, so they were paying completely out of pocket for the surgery.

  • FuzzyRedPanda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    The cruelty of the US American for-profit health system is what should be uniting all US Americans in protest, riot, and violent overthrow of the current system.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    278
    ·
    1 day ago

    Universal health care? I don’t want government making my health care decisions! We have for-profit companies for that.

      • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        Frank is a busy man. Denying medical treatments, sitting on death panels. Is there nothing Frank can do?

        Oh yeah, Frank can’t approve medical treatment.

    • Kokesh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Don’t be so sure it would be different. I collapsed, nearly drove off the road 3 times in one week and decided that it was enough and went to the doctor. He sent me home, wrote me in as extreme burnout (completely true, I had to sleep at work for every coffee break to make it through the day and 30 mins before driving home to actually make it). So I thought Great, I will rest for a few months and go back to work after that! Nope. The state heath insurance office said Our specialists decided, that you are perfectly fine. No sick pay. Get back to operating the industrial concrete blender. The health center doctors signed a letter, but no, I was fucked. So on top of this I got extreme financial stress. We got out of this crap by renting our cabin and starting going full into an outdoor adventure business. What a great time. Where was this? In Sweden in January 2019.

      • systemglitch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Sounds like a flaw in the system. I fail to see how health insurance should ever be involved between patient and doctor in a “universal” health care system. Sure doesn’t happen where I live.

        • kungen@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Well, they got denied by Försäkringskassan, “Swedish Social Insurance Agency”. Basically wouldn’t be able to get sick-pay, but that’s about it. Which is a bit weird, as nearly all first-time requests get approved, but of course it happens.

          So it’s not really the same thing as American insurance denying; they’re still able to seek care, just that the suggested treatment for burnout (pause from working) wouldn’t be economically comfortable if Försäkringskassan denies their sick-pay.

      • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s cute that you expect Americans to feel sympathy because your employer didn’t take your burnout seriously

    • systemglitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Do people believe that there? I can assure you the government has no roll in our health care decisions, and what the doctor wants the patient can always get.

        • nelly_man@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Yep. The two main arguments were that the ACA would create death panels and that people would no longer have a choice in their healthcare providers. But both of those were, and still are, the status quo with private, for profit health insurance providers being involved in care.

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    208
    ·
    1 day ago

    i have a friend who’s a transplant patient and has been taking the same meds for over 10 years post transplant-- every year it’s a furious battle with insurance who, every year, decides the meds are no longer “medically necessary” and drops coverage for it. fucking helloooo these are anti-rejection pills, the textbook definition of “medically necessary.”

    it’s not that insurance companies are stupid, it’s that they’re saving money on people dying when those people don’t get what they needed to live.

    insurance is the biggest fucking scam of all time

    • militaryintelligence@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      But insurance companies said that if everyone paid for insurance, especially the people who don’t need it, that costs would go down

    • Vox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      80
      ·
      1 day ago

      The insurance system does not work in the medical field, it would never work because insurance is for managing risks that are unknown, like a house flooding or your car getting hit in an intersection.

      In medical “insurance” it is often dealing with known issues, and the insurance system is just not set up to deal with preventative care, annual check ups, mammograms, blood tests, or pre-existing conditions. It would be like trying to use car insurance to pay for an oil change, which is just as ridiculous as it sounds in your head.

      That’s exactly why the term “insurance” should be used when discussing a single payer system, it’s not really insurance, it should be a collective action group that works together with the medical community to find a middle ground where hospitals can still exist and pay wages to their staff, the people can get the medical care they need without getting thrown into poverty for daring to get sick, and the government benefits from having a healthier population as a whole.

      Too bad theres way too much money in the short term in keeping this all private, and having a sicker population, so we have decades of insurance company propaganda to work against, and a huge population of people that don’t understand that by doing single payer health care your taxes would go up, but you also wouldn’t be paying out the nose for medical insurance & medical care (because they don’t cover anything). Also think of a world where your health care isn’t beholden to your employment, all the different choices you’d make in your life.

    • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I have a chronic condition that requires expensive medication. Every. Single. Year. I have to fight insurance to renew the prescription. I went without for months the first time and ended up needing a far more expensive surgery to fix the damage it caused. I was already pretty left-leaning before my diagnosis, but now I don’t believe there is any justification for private anything in healthcare. It’s a completely morally bankrupt business to be making money off of people’s unavoidable suffering.

  • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    Had my buddy over who brought over his incredibly questionable 30yo brother who shared some real incel levels of talk. He used my bathroom and asked if I wore tampons since a pack was visible. Like bro, I have a wife and a daughter.

    Anyways, that guy works in health insurance!

    I don’t know how much decisions he can actually make. But that dude has a middle-school level education about sex ed and struggled to explain what a period is. And he is one of the barriers to approving/rejecting your health care.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      “You want me to whip out my dick and slap you with it since that was the stupidest question I’ve heard?”

    • Bongles@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      There’s different teams doing different types of work.

      Like the claim system might have it setup so X codes in Y situations can’t be automated. Then someone looks at the claim, determines based on their written guidelines that this one needs to be reviewed so they look to see if there are notes attached. If there aren’t they request the notes, maybe by sending a letter. If there are, they send it to the team that reviews notes and makes these decisions. Those people probably also have written guidelines on what is allowed or not and if it’s more complicated they (should) have someone qualified that can review it. Then the claim is probably sent back to the other team saying “Hey, deny that code and allow this code”, where they then just do whatever that says.

      They probably also have situations where X code in Y situation is “never” allowed and the first people reviewing it just always deny it. Then, as mentioned elsewhere here, the provider has to resubmit it and then it’s allowed on “appeal” by another team. This brother you mentioned is probably doing very little decision making beyond applying already decided guidelines to each claim, if he even processes them.