Live data from Hacker News

A Glimpse into the Bureaucratic Hell of Denying Health Insurance Claims

splinternews.com

61–70 of 211 posts

Re: A Glimpse into the Bureaucratic Hell of Denying Health Insurance Claims

#61
This story is couched in terms of how bad things were before Obamacare, but I’d like to point out that things aren’t great now either. To prevent Obamacare from bankrupting them, insurance companies are resorting to legally dubious mass-denials, one of which affected me personally.

A few months ago, I woke up the next morning after eating some fast food and began vomiting. I couldn’t stop throwing up, and I couldn’t eat anything, for 2 straight days. I had a 101 degree fever at the worst point. At the beginning of day 3, when I vomited so hard that I passed out for a few seconds and fell on the floor, I went to the ER. They gave me IV fluids and anti-nausea medication, which worked.

About 2 months later, I received a letter from my insurance company (Anthem). They had determined that my situation didn’t qualify as an “emergency,” and therefore they were denying the entire bill for this ER visit. I have appealed, and so far it has not been overturned. I am now on the hook for thousands of dollars, even though I had already covered my entire deductible for the year.

I thought that this had to simply be a mistake, but then I learned this is actually a new policy that insurance companies are implementing in the era of Obamacare [1]. Patients are expected to self-diagnose whether or not their situation meets their insurance company's definition of an “emergency,” and are rolling the dice as to whether or not an ER visit will be covered.

[1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/29/16906558/a...

Re: A Glimpse into the Bureaucratic Hell of Denying Health Insurance Claims

#62
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ryan’s point was that Obamacare’s guaranteed-issue requirement means that exchange plans can only be viable if they attract enough healthy people to cover the costs of the currently or chronically ill. Both groups must be offered the same rates. Surely you can see how that is different from (say) fire or auto insurance, where no one would expect to pay the same to insure two houses, only one of which is actually burn…

Isn't that why the individual mandate and the minimum coverage standard existed?

Yes. But the mandate was always pretty toothless and has now been completely defanged.

Regardless, the idea that under ACA “the healthy pay for the sick” as expressed by Ryan was certainly not an oblivious truism about the nature of insurance as it is being portrayed.

Re: A Glimpse into the Bureaucratic Hell of Denying Health Insurance Claims

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ACA is horrendous, unless you're receiving a government subsidy. I'm self-employed and we have one option of insurance provider, and the cheapest plan for my family last year was $18,000 a year with a huge deductible. That's after tax, out of pocket, for a healthy family with no pre-existing. Like all self-employed people I know (who aren't getting government subsidy), I moved my family to Christian Medishare, which…

How do you make sure you're actually getting catastrophic coverage for $3k? The information asymmetry between insurance providers and customers heavily incentivizes the creation of "value" plans that achieve their "value" by appearing to cover more than they actually do. Since only a tiny fraction of customers ever make catastrophic claims, most people will be unaware that they are buying garbage even if a policy wer…

Last year I didn't care because I couldn't afford the ACA, and Christian Medishare met the Obamacare requirement to carry insurance or face a tax penalty. The "health care sharing ministry" operates differently than insurance, my concern isn't denial of coverage but that the entire enterprise will collapse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_sharing_ministry

Re: A Glimpse into the Bureaucratic Hell of Denying Health Insurance Claims

#64
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little data that agrees with your impression: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/07/28/overwh...

That article, aided and abetted by the terrible writing in the Brookings article it's criticizing, is comparing apples (the rate of increase ) and oranges (the actual increase ). There's no controversy that health insurance rates are increasing; they've been increasing dramatically since the turn of the century.

And I actually worked in insurance. The Fortune 500 company I worked for paid for me to go to school 8 hours a day for 3 months. I got a certificate from a technical college and additional training.

Obamacare is a terrible solution.

But don't let industry expertise stop you from your usual antics of feeling like no one is allowed to disagree with you and you need to win every argument, even if it means harassing anyone commenting, never mind that they weren't replying to you.

Re: A Glimpse into the Bureaucratic Hell of Denying Health Insurance Claims

#65
post #14

If you're a tech entrepreneur, it's the first story in here that should alarm you the most. It's about denying coverage altogether, not about denying individual claims. Outside of the "guaranteed issue" ACA market, there is virtually no due process for coverage denial. You can be denied on a whim, with little recourse. The list of conditions for which insurance outside the ACA will be denied is long and opaque. The s…

ACA is horrendous, unless you're receiving a government subsidy. I'm self-employed and we have one option of insurance provider, and the cheapest plan for my family last year was $18,000 a year with a huge deductible. That's after tax, out of pocket, for a healthy family with no pre-existing. Like all self-employed people I know (who aren't getting government subsidy), I moved my family to Christian Medishare, which…

$18,000 doesn't sound large, relative to the high prices we all pay. I have a good solid job, and my family plan is $24k per year. That's the most basic family plan my employer offers, but it isn't a high-deductible plan. Of course, most of that is paid by my employer, so I only pay about $4k directly out of my salary. If you are self employed, then you obviously have to pay the employer part too.

Re: A Glimpse into the Bureaucratic Hell of Denying Health Insurance Claims

#66
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The injustice of the system is that self-employed have to pay with after-tax dollars while your employer can deduct the cost of providing those benefits.

As I understand it (I hope I understand this, because I rely on it), LLC principals are allowed to deduct the cost of health insurance.

Unfortunately neither Christian Medishare nor our out-of-pocket health care payments are deductible.

https://www.medishare.com/blog/is-healthcare-sharing-tax-ded...

Re: A Glimpse into the Bureaucratic Hell of Denying Health Insurance Claims

#67
That's a very interesting insight into the world of American healthcare and privatized healthcare in general. Previously I thought that all these statements about the US healthcare system were seriously exaggerated, but I guess I was wrong. It's kind of terrifying that being sick excludes you from access to healthcare. In my experince, public healthcare has many problems, but you get what you need.

Re: A Glimpse into the Bureaucratic Hell of Denying Health Insurance Claims

#68
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The injustice of the system is that self-employed have to pay with after-tax dollars while your employer can deduct the cost of providing those benefits.

As I understand it (I hope I understand this, because I rely on it), LLC principals are allowed to deduct the cost of health insurance.

my accountant never allowed me to do this in PA

Re: A Glimpse into the Bureaucratic Hell of Denying Health Insurance Claims

#69
post #14

If you're a tech entrepreneur, it's the first story in here that should alarm you the most. It's about denying coverage altogether, not about denying individual claims. Outside of the "guaranteed issue" ACA market, there is virtually no due process for coverage denial. You can be denied on a whim, with little recourse. The list of conditions for which insurance outside the ACA will be denied is long and opaque. The s…

ACA is horrendous, unless you're receiving a government subsidy. I'm self-employed and we have one option of insurance provider, and the cheapest plan for my family last year was $18,000 a year with a huge deductible. That's after tax, out of pocket, for a healthy family with no pre-existing. Like all self-employed people I know (who aren't getting government subsidy), I moved my family to Christian Medishare, which…

>ACA is horrendous, unless you're receiving a government subsidy.

I'm curious as to why you say "the ACA is horrendous" rather than "The income cutoffs for the ACA subsidies are way too low" - I mean, it seems obvious to me that if you make a median salary and have a family of four that you need some sort of health insurance subsidy, but I don't know where the ACA subsidy lines are, or even if they vary per state or not.

I personally am in favor of just expanding medicare or medicade so that everyone can use them to get minimal health care if they need it. I mean, sure, if you have money, you probably still want private insurance on top of that, just like retirees today, but we've got a reasonable system for giving everyone over 65 a minimal level of care, and healthcare for younger people is a lot cheaper than healthcare for old people, so it seems like a big rich country like ours should be able to cover that bill.

but I don't think that is politically possible. I think this last election was in some ways a referendum on the ACA, and I would interpret the results as saying that many, if not most Americans think that you should only get healthcare if you can pay for it. Which seems weird to me, because as you point out, if you make anything like average money, healthcare for a family for three or four is impossible to pay for without a subsidy.

>I'm seriously considering returning to wage employment for health care benefits.

In the days before the ACA, I'd just get a full time job every time COBRA and CAL-COBRA ran out, because I couldn't get a plan at all without. I mean, I was happy paying $6K/year just for me, and that's what I'd pay under COBRA or CAL-COBRA but, once that ran out, nobody would sell to me. Maybe I wasn't asking the right people, but it wasn't like they came back with high numbers, they just said they couldn't cover me. It was weird, because while I did have a chronic condition or two, none of them were particularly dangerous or unusual.

Re: A Glimpse into the Bureaucratic Hell of Denying Health Insurance Claims

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The known cost isn't really insurable. A premium based on expected costs would include the full amount of the known future costs and also some amount for less predictable costs.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Let's stay with the example of asthma. I pay a premium based on that condition, and the expectation that maybe one day I'll get cancer. Sure, I can understand that. So then I get cancer, and the bill is more than I can afford. Where does the money come from? Not my premiums, because I've only been a subscriber for 3 months, and my premiums won't even cover the cost of treatment for…

Other people do pay for the cancer treatment. Make up a pool of, say, 1000 people. Make up a cancer rate of say, 5/1000. Make up an asthma rate of say, 50/1000.

The people that are going to get cancer are unknown, but the whole group is willing to pay 0.5% of the cost of cancer treatment for a contract that covers 100% of the cost.

The 950 people that know they don't need expensive asthma treatment don't really want to pay for contracts that will cover expensive asthma treatment, so (in a pure insurance market) either the cost has to be included in the contracts for the 50 that do have it or the treatment can be excluded from the contracts.

Post reply on HN