this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
1780 points (97.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
5837 readers
1643 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And these cunts get to say 'doctor is wrong you don't actually need that'
I just thought of a funny concept which is that when you're born in the country you're automatically given life insurance. Then when a doctor says "you need this operation" and the health insurance company is like "your doctor is wrong" your life insurance company can come in and be like "you can't kill my guy, because he'd be owed a gigantic payout!" and then go to war with each other.
It would never work in reality, but I find the idea funny.
What would predictably happen is that the health insurance company would still withhold care, and the life insurance company would deny the payout based on the care being withheld. Then they both would be like "sue me".
And eventually they would merge and be just one company.
This is a genuine concern with over regulation of any industry. If they can just say they were following the regulation, which inevitably will lack in some areas, then that is a strong defense for them.
Usually mergers happen and monopolies form because there is no regulation of industry
Intellectual property law is a form of regulation
I don't think thought property laws help Nestle at all. Or reional monopolies.
How is Nestle a monopoly?
what about just taking that money and just having healthcare instead?
I know I'll be hated for this, but my wife works for an insurance company, as a doctor, doing chart review. She was always very responsible as a doctor, but the shit she talks about that doctors prescribe is ridiculous.
One case that sticks with me (not even the most egregious, but because of the berating she got from the doctor and the patient), the patient needed a special car seat, which they approved. The doctor also prescribed a 200 dollar car seat cover. Now the seat already comes with a removable and washable cover, this additional one would just make it easier to remove and wash. It was denied as not medically necessary, which it clearly is not. The doctor demanded a consult and then yelled at her the whole time. The patient also called her and yelled at her.
Im a firm supporter of universal healthcare, but the idea that doctors never do ridiculously unnecessary shit, regardless of the reason, requires one to be completely ignorant of how any of this actually works. And so, even with universal health care, some bureaucrat stepping in to determine if a doctor made the right decision would absolutely still be necessary.
Yeah, no, fuck off with that. The doctor is the care provider, not the insurance company, and an insurance company has no fucking business deciding what is or isn't medically necessary.
They decide what they pay for, it is factually true that doctors will treat so they get paid more, this is especially a concern in private practice.
I notice how you didn't actually address my point all, just reiterated the claim.
I don't believe this happens that often, but what happens in the case that a doctor prescribes completely unnecessary procedures and visits, which makes them rich. Still the insurance company shouldn't do anything?
If your wife has not seen or treated the patient, she has no basis to deny the claim as medically unnecessary. She has no idea what conditions the patient may have that would necessitate having a different seat cover. I get that you love your wife, but her job leads to significantly more pain than benefit.
You're just wrong. I assume it because you have no medical experience and don't have any knowledge of how any of this works, but doctors are supposed to take good notes throughout their care that go into charts. This is done so any doctor, especially if we are talking about in a hospital, can step in and read what has been done, why it was done, so they know what they should do next. There are also standards of care for certain conditions that have been established and reviewed by many other doctors.
So she can absolutely read these charts and the standards of care and have a very good basis for what is and what is not necessary. Is it 100%? Of course not, which is why doctors and patients can appeal. But if they can't justify why it is medically necessary, which was certainly the case here and it was clearly just a case of quality of life, then it makes sense not to waste resources...this would be true with or without private medical insurance.
Yes, of course you're right. That's why my surgeon friend who works in oncology has to frequently waste his time calling insurance over denied claims regarding fucking treatments for cancer patients. Truly medically unnecessary, which is why they're pretty much always reversed and when they're not, he gets to tell the patient they are going to die because someone who has never met them denied their claim as medically unnecessary. Same goes for my friend in the PICU, except she gets the added bonus of telling a little kid's parents.
And my guess is it would have literally been cheaper for everyone involved for insurance to just pay for the $200 seat cover. Modern American insurance companies are capitalist enterprises providing a socialist benefit. And the doctors denying claims on behalf of the insurance companies are not seeing the patients in question so are basing their decision on questionable documentation and "industry standards" that are based on heavy insurance influence. All to maximize value for the company rather than ensure patient welfare, which is the fucking point of insurance.
There is plenty of abuse of the system through over billing, but somehow fucking Medicare is the most efficient health insurance system in America. If private insurance is so great, why are they more inefficient with worse outcomes?
Are you under the impression that medicare does not do chart review nor deny claims? I assure you this is incorrect because, the irony being, my wife works on the medicare side of chart review.
As I've been saying, this doesn't go away, nor should it, if we move to universal health care. Something I strongly support, btw, I dislike insurance companies as much as you do. The difference between you and me is that I recognize that doctors are not infallible and omniscient and can make mistakes.
I started off very clearly and explicitly saying Im a strong supporter of universal healthcare. Why do you think you came to the conclusion that I think private insurance is so great?
Medicare or Medicare Advantage? Because Advantage is private. Medicare has like 5 levels of appeal, including to a federal court, most of which is free. There are systems in place to allow challenges to the reviewing doctor's denial. Private insurance typically forces arbitration.
I have problems with Medicare's system too, especially when it comes to claims denials. If it is a covered item or procedure, the claim is not fraudulent, and the insurance provider has not met the patient to perform any exam, then going off of notes and comparing with best practices is insufficient to deny a claim. This may surprise you, but the doctors hired by insurance are not magically better than the ones treating the patient.
It's Medicare. She has a friend who works on the private insurance side of the company and she always makes fun of him for it.
The metric is based on medical necessity, and it's standard for Medicare to deny claims for things that are not medically necessary. Again, if the doctor thinks it is medically necessary, they can appeal the decision and make their case, and that happens frequently.
I've already stated that I know doctors are not perfect and omniscient, so I'm not sure why you would imply I think otherwise. Although, this isn't the first time you've implied I think the opposite of what I've explicitly stated. Is this going to be a trend?
Then fair enough, I apologize for assuming she works in private insurance. Your initial framing and argument made it seem otherwise. I still think you and I disagree on the need for widespread chart reviews for medical necessity.
When you said doctors are not infallible, you said it in response to my claim that, in essence, the treating doctor should always get deference. It is natural to assume that you did not believe the same standard applied to reviewing doctors at Medicare since you've been arguing the same.
As you note, treating doctors frequently appeal Medicare denials. That's a lot of wasted time and money. I see no evidence that these denials are saving more money than is being wasted fighting them. I'm having trouble finding data for traditional Medicare, but for Medicare Advantage, appeals routinely get overturned to such a degree that Congress investigated it.
You stated earlier that doctors are required to take notes and your wife relies on these notes when making a recommendation. Doctors are notoriously bad at documentation. It's why relying on their notes to make a judgment as to medical necessity is a terrible idea. I firmly believe no one should be denied coverage because their doctor sucks at writing a report.
Understandable because I said she works for an insurance company. But it was not my intent. No need to apologize for this.
I disagree that it's natural. I said doctors, not just doctors providing care (which my wife is still one of, btw). I suspect that this is an issue of viewing it as too black and white ... so because I said one "side" is not perfect...well I must then think the other "side" is perfect.
This is a different question than the one I'm trying to answer. I haven't seen the books or analysis, so I don't know whether it is more efficient. However, just peripherally, even i can see how much waste there is an even as a laymen it's easy for me to understand that so many of the things she sees are just blatantly not medically necessary.
Times they are a changing. Them not justifying why they are doing something is no longer adequate, and wont be adequate even if (maybe even especially if) we move to universal health care.
Insurance companies shouldn't exist. Healthcare should not be a for-profit institution.
Agreed. But as I pointed out, even without insurance companies, there would still be standards of care and there would still be people reviewing charts to make sure doctors aren't overdoing things and wasting resources.
The thing that's missing here is context. It's hard to care about a random doctor prescribing an extra $200 for a patient that is taken out of the tens of billions of dollars of profit a year that health insurance companies make.
Like, this car seat anecdote costs as much as an hour meeting of a few of their higher paid employees.
Does that really matter? Should it matter?
The real thing is many regular preventative checks are a huge money maker for physicians while not actually being that effective for patient outcomes. IIRC its been argued prostate exams are an example of this. IMO, routine removal of wisdom teeth is another, and routine circumcision is an obvious one.
These are different questions, I was responding to the implicit claim that it's ridiculous that someone other than a doctor could understand what is medically necessary.
Although one thing my wife has expressed shock about since taking this role is how much waste there is, and how much doctors prescribe that is just clearly not medically necessary.
Tell me why the baby needed that special cover and I'll form my opinion...
Better yet, let the doctor tell me, rather than someone one step removed from insurance company payroll. Which brings us full circle.
Doctors can, and often do, request consults where they make their case. My wife will occasionally change her mind after hearing from the doctor on why they think it is necessary. She will often even reach out to the doctor if she is unsure about the outcome.
In this case the doctor just yelled at her and didn't make a case at all.
I had an ear infection, the doctor thought I was lying for pain killers(she said people my age shouldn't get ear infections, and I could've just used a hairdryer), I told her no the pain is fine I just want antibiotics so it doesn't get worse. She then decided to prescribe codeine and oral antiobiotics but not ear drops.
When I went to the pharmacist they filled the codeine prescription even though I didn't want it.
What the fuck? I see it often in english-speaking places, but I want to know why doctors say "oh, you just want pain killers". Them being concerned about painkillers more than about biological nukes infections can become resistant to greatly concerns me.
I think because I was a young male basically was her basis
...but why?
Well it is true, many drug addicts are dependent on prescription pain killers. Which other people will intentionally get prescribed so they can sell. Y'know, the whole opioid crisis thing.