Live data from Hacker News

42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

bigthink.com

201–210 of 314 posts

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#201

Perhaps the real problem is that chemo, radiation, and surgery don't really cure cancer, in most cases. There is a lot of bad science in cancer research. The "science" that bothers me the most is the use of 5-year survival rates. Suppose that a cancer that starts at age 60 becomes symptomatic at age 65, and kills the patient at age 70. Scenario 1: you are 60 years old, get screened, and opt for treatment (who wouldn'…

Right now my grandmother has stage 4 cancer, and has opted to not treat. The chances were very low for survival and the process painful. I'm pretty sure I would opt similarly if over 60. It sucks, and it's hard to see her that way. I'm heading over to see her after work in a few minutes (she's gotten worse the past couple days).

I don't think it's responsible to always opt for treatment. It sucks and it's a hard decision to make and everyone needs to decide for themselves. Your scenario 1, for example also likely includes $30-200k in medical bills that your family has to pay when you die. Do you have your estate in a trust? There's a lot of things that nobody considers.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#202

Sometimes I’m just amazed that people haven’t risen up in bloody revolt yet. Recently my mother had a flare-up up radiation-induced pneumonitis and the PPO insurance she pays $14,000 annually wouldn’t approve a single unit of Advair. It took a week of talking to doctors and insurance drones to figure out that they were pushing her to an alternative that cost them $100 less. If I woke up tomorrow and people were burni…

What's wrong with that? That's how healthcare costs are controlled, by pushing patients to the less costly alternative.

If you lived in another country with single payer healthcare, it would be the same, if not more of a push to cheaper drugs.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#203
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be pushing a myth: expensive treatments must be better treatments, right? We have very good evidence that these new, expensive, treatments do not extend life and that they make quality of life worse. England set up something called the Cancer Drugs Fund. This provided access to new medication that hadn't yet been assessed for value; that were in the process of being assessed; or that had been assessed a…

> This seems to be pushing a myth: expensive treatments must be better treatments, right? We have very good evidence that these new, expensive, treatments do not extend life and that they make quality of life worse. It's not pushing any myth at all. As explained elsewhere government-run systems like the NHS do attach actual dollar amounts to treatments that are effective and do extend life, but for which they're not…

> where they determine how "good" a person's life is

No they don't. This is not true.

> This is not, as you are implying, saying "this treatment is ineffective or harmful, so we won't pay for it". It is literally saying "we understand that this treatment would extend this person's life by 5 years, but it costs £50,000, and based on their condition, we're only willing to spend £25,000 to extend their life by 5 years.

This is just not true. Find just one single medication that i) extends life by 5 years ii) costs just £10,000 per year and iii) has been banned.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#204
I had an uncle who was quite well off and ran an exotic car garage in the US. He had all the insurance, etc. His wife got cancer, insurance wouldn't cover some of the treatment. She died, he went bankrupt, then killed himself.

I'm glad I live in a country where I literally don't even think about treatment or care, it's just not something I worry about. I've had a few relatives in NZ who've had cancer, they've all had excellent care which prolonged their lives and when they passed they didn't leave their survivors with the financial strain in addition to the heartache of losing a loved one.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#205

I am sympathetic. From HN stories, the US health care situations seems abysmal. BUT, i want to make 3 counter points, if only for the sake of discussion. a. Cancer for many is a terminal disease. There are always some very very expensive and experimental or marginal treatments. If u have money, and are going to die, and decide to spend all you can to squeeze an extra year of life , i am very sympathetic but even the…

I agree with low safety net, but an average income is taxed about as heavily as the UK or Germany.

Source?

The highest bracket kicks in a much lower salary in the UK and Germany than it does in the US.

My income taxes were much lower in the US coming from Canada.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#208
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious to find out what it would take for someone to create a service that counters some of these dark patterns. The abundance of companies using dark patterns in their subscriptions to prevent subscription cancellations has led to other companies offering services that allow you to manage your various subscriptions with ease and cancel subscriptions with even greater ease. I'm wondering what it would take to ap…

It's called medical tourism

I somehow read that as "medical terrorism".

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#209
post #118

I recently watched a family member go through this. A few things that were sobering to see: - Three weeks in she was buried in paperwork. One chemo treatment would turn into 4-5 invoices from different subcontractors at a single hospital, some covered by her insurance, others not covered. Her insurer denied claims arbitrarily and made her go through a bunch of invasive and unnecessary procedures to prove her illness.…

I'm sorry your family member went through this. That's terrible and no one should have to deal with that kind of treatment.

I'll echo much of what you said. When I was 21, I was diagnosed and treated for malignant melanoma (skin cancer) that had metastasized to my lymph nodes. The treatment worked and I've been healthy for many years. That said, it changed the way and manner in which I deal with billing and insurance, so I'll share a couple of things that I learned in case someone else runs into the same issue.

- Do not immediately pay any invoice. Wait until the explanation of benefits arrives first and then verify that the two match. Basically, verify that the doctor is billing what the insurance company states is uncovered. Sometimes they're different and that indicates a problem.

- Check all statement of benefits for uncovered claims. It's important to understand why a claim is denied. If a doctor is not in network, it's important to drop them right away. If the doctor used an unapproved billing code or sequence of codes, it's important to know this and insure that this doesn't happen again or else it gets expensive. Alternatively, the doctor's office can resubmit the claim using different billing codes.

- Just because a doctor shows up under the "find a doc" in the insurance search doesn't mean they're in network. PHCS is notorious for this, which happens to be the network used by the health sharing ministries (which is part of the reason why these organizations are a terrible idea.) Anyway, even if a doctor is listed, it doesn't mean that they're using that tax id for their services. The insurance company and the underwriter maintain a database of tax ids that really determine who is in network or not. The doctor nor the front desk will have this information. The billing department does. As such, the process is to call billing, before the appointment, and get their tax id. Then, call your insurance and verify the tax id directly. Some phone support want to just verify the name. That is not good enough. Verify the actual tax id and insist that this is what is checked.

- Even if the tax id is verified, the claim may still be denied. This an innumerable number of reasons why this may happen. I had one denied because they billed a new patient the same day as a procedure. Anyway, the only way to truly know the cost is to get the procedure code and the tax id and then verify with the underwriter that this is covered. I mention the underwriter because the insurance company doesn't have this information, at least the ones I've used. Generally, the insurance company will refuse to give the underwriters contact and the underwriter will refuse to talk to you even if you get it, so the insurance company has to call them and then verify both the tax-id and billing codes. This only works some of the time, but they really can do it if they want. Most of the time, I don't go this far unless there's a dispute. Generally, verifying the tax-id is good enough.

- Hospitals do not just hire their own people. Most are filled and staffed with medical groups who use their own billing. Here's where things gets stressful. You basically have to be forceful, while sick, and ask each new physician and lab tech what medical group they work for and what their tax-ids are. The really crappy situations occur when the hospital gets slammed and then they bring in someone to help cover the gap and they use a tax-id that's not in network. This gets astronomically expensive quickly. And, look, the hospital will get tired of you asking. I get it. If I'm there, I'm either sick or dying and don't want to ask either, but these surprise bills can bankrupt you.

- Hospitals may randomly apply funds paid to random invoices. If this shell game goes on long enough, bills can be sent to collections even if you've paid them purely because funds paid were applied to new invoices and not old. Generally, hospitals will try 3 or 4 times to collect on an invoice. If you know one has been paid, verify the money has been collected from checking or credit, and then call the hospital to complain. It needs to be fixed sooner rather than later.

- As far as paperwork, I save the doctors notes from that day, the insurance explanation of benefits, the bill, and the receipt of payment from my bank, in a single file labeled for that day of service. This has saved my ass multiple times because I can quickly determine whether a bill has been paid and when.

- Do not overpay. Ever. Getting money back from a hospital is extremely difficult. Then, they'll randomly apply the credit to new invoices, which screws up the bookkeeping. This is part of why I delay paying invoices till I know they're good.

Alright, that was longer than I anticipated. Anyway, the situation is ridiculous and I hope no one here has to go through this mess. Hopefully, what I wrote above will help someone else.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#210
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the informative reply. > Lowering premiums allows insurers to win customers away from competing insurers. Absolutely. That's what leads to competition with insurance plans that are superficially more attractive ("hey, cheaper premiums"), while basically nullifying the benefits of insurance (by making you and your family broke when things turn bad - and then you die). The alternate system doesn't need to…

> But quite evidently, the US system leads to harrowing quandaries for many ill people and their families, worse overall health outcomes, higher overall costs, and richer health insurance CEOs than what's done in all other developed countries; and I still don't understand why you appear to defend it. We're specifically talking about cancer treatment in this thread, where the data is pretty clear: the US has dramatica…

> the US has dramatically better survival rates for cancer in the US,

No, the US massively over-tests and over-diagnoses cancer at very early stages, but this does not lead to better quality of life nor to longer life.

Post reply on HN