Live data from Hacker News

Insurers rely on doctors whose judgments have been criticized by courts

propublica.org

51–60 of 262 posts

Re: Insurers rely on doctors whose judgments have been criticized by courts

#51
post #12

Ironically, I think that the increased attention to the denial of claims plays straight into insurer's hands. Healthcare isn't expensive because insurers don't pay enough to healthcare providers. In fact, it's the opposite. The ACA mandates that at least 80% of premiums must go towards medical expenses. This means that insurers are actually incentivized to overpay for care to maximize the size of their 20% slice. If…

You can negotiate all you want but ultimately the productivity improvements have to come from providers (hospitals, pharmaceutical companies) if you want to lower costs. There are ways to make insurers better agents (one simple step would be to make their customers the actual patients, rather than the employers of patients) but I'm not sure how much power they actually have to keep costs low

The conversion factors for private insurance are 2–3x those of Medicare. There's plenty of room to lower costs. Either private insurance companies aren't interested in lowering costs or their claims process is so arduous that providers demand higher rates to deal with the high rate of denials and ever changing minutiae.

Providers are not the problem here.

Re: Insurers rely on doctors whose judgments have been criticized by courts

#52

I'm not American and grew up (and work) in Western Europe. Everyone is born, and, at some point, will get sick and die. Why does each of these cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars? I've heard American doctors at conferences describing their system as "the worst imaginable". Every American I know hates their system. It costs a lot more, has worse outcomes and shovels money and privilege towards the rich. Why…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Insurers rely on doctors whose judgments have been criticized by courts

#53
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why don’t you change it? Who do you think should change it, exactly? You’re making the classic mistake of assuming the US works like the average European country: a functioning democracy where if something makes sense, politicians will promise it in their manifestos, and then implement it once they get elected. In reality the US works completely differently and is not a functioning democracy. Making any major refor…

The only hope for reform in the US is to position it as furthering the transfer of wealth to the ultra-rich. Then, you might get some traction. But it’s hard to frame a legitimately good policy in these terms.

It’s a nice soundbite, but not really accurate to describe US economic history as a process of wealth transfer to the ultra-rich. Everyone has gotten wealthier over time, it’s just that the wealth of the rich has increased even faster than everyone else’s.

Re: Insurers rely on doctors whose judgments have been criticized by courts

#54

I'm not American and grew up (and work) in Western Europe. Everyone is born, and, at some point, will get sick and die. Why does each of these cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars? I've heard American doctors at conferences describing their system as "the worst imaginable". Every American I know hates their system. It costs a lot more, has worse outcomes and shovels money and privilege towards the rich. Why…

[flagged]

Re: Insurers rely on doctors whose judgments have been criticized by courts

#55

I'm not American and grew up (and work) in Western Europe. Everyone is born, and, at some point, will get sick and die. Why does each of these cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars? I've heard American doctors at conferences describing their system as "the worst imaginable". Every American I know hates their system. It costs a lot more, has worse outcomes and shovels money and privilege towards the rich. Why…

> Why don't you change it? What are the reasons why moving to a single payer system is so bad? The best way I can describe our healthcare is that it's freakishly complicated, so complicated that pretty much every argument made by any side at any given time is both correct and incorrect. For your example about single payer, with that scheme costs will likely be much lower but on the flip side, we also would not get im…

"someone in their 50's or 60's that has pre-existing conditions" should not be naive enough to believe your nonsense about seeing doctors right away. No matter what you need, it's always a referral to a specialist, and they are generally booking out months in advance. One or two months is a good wait time here.

Also "grandma" is on Medicare, if not completely then as the primary payer (supplement) or at least benefiting from the negotiating/regulations (medicare advantage).

(and just for perspective here, I'm actually not a big proponent of single payer as the main reform. the problem is that discussing any type of reform has been absolutely paralyzed by nonsense talking points to entrench the status quo)

Re: Insurers rely on doctors whose judgments have been criticized by courts

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why don't you change it? I suspect because nobody can agree on what the new replacement system should look like.

There are several functioning examples in Europe, 'they' could take a look at.

Who is “they”, exactly? What specific group of people do you think is in charge of the system and should do this?

Re: Insurers rely on doctors whose judgments have been criticized by courts

#57
post #12

Ironically, I think that the increased attention to the denial of claims plays straight into insurer's hands. Healthcare isn't expensive because insurers don't pay enough to healthcare providers. In fact, it's the opposite. The ACA mandates that at least 80% of premiums must go towards medical expenses. This means that insurers are actually incentivized to overpay for care to maximize the size of their 20% slice. If…

Nobody, not this article or any other reasonable person, thinks that claim denial is the reason healthcare is expensive. Rather, they think it is fundamentally fraudulent that someone can pay their premiums, etc. and then when they need treatment, be arbitrarily denied by an in-house doctor employed by their insurer to deny treatment.

This is a story of the fraud in the health insurance industry, not the racket part of the industry.

Re: Insurers rely on doctors whose judgments have been criticized by courts

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why don't you change it? I suspect because nobody can agree on what the new replacement system should look like.

There are several functioning examples in Europe, 'they' could take a look at.

Like where? UK system is collapsing under underfunding and misallocation, German system is crumbling under terrible lack of personell with raising (already high) costs with lowering quality and increasing waiting times (up to infinite where mamologs and psychiatrists simply take no new patients in many cities).

Basically in all thirst world countries trend is negative unless and experience is frustrating unless you are rich with good private coverage. At least that's my experience.

Re: Insurers rely on doctors whose judgments have been criticized by courts

#59
post #23

I'm not American and grew up (and work) in Western Europe. Everyone is born, and, at some point, will get sick and die. Why does each of these cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars? I've heard American doctors at conferences describing their system as "the worst imaginable". Every American I know hates their system. It costs a lot more, has worse outcomes and shovels money and privilege towards the rich. Why…

not an American, but it seems to me that the reason is purely ideological. They like a small state, especially the federal government. This would give too much power to the government. The idea of federal government providing care for citizens is not acceptable to people. Now, weird thing is this doesn't work for the military somehow.

The federal government already pays (either directly, for Medicare and Tricare) or indirectly (Medicaid) around 45% of healthcare expenditures in the United States, and regulates nearly every aspect of healthcare delivery in some form or fashion.

There’s an awful lot of small-government posturing that goes on, but it is not accurate to say our system is the result of a small government approach.

To provide just one concrete example: in the 80s, we had problems with hospitals “dumping” indigent patients. In some cases, they would literally take homeless people who showed up needing medical attention to some random part of town and drop them off on the side of the road.

Naturally, there was public outrage about this. Demands that it stop.

There are, of course, many ways a society could address this problem: a single payer system, a nationwide indigent care fund, etc.

Here’s what we did: as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, the federal government stipulated that any hospital which accepts Medicare/Medicaid[0] and which operates an emergency department must provide “stabilizing care” to anyone who shows up at that emergency department with an "Emergency Medical Condition" before inquiring about the patient’s ability to pay[1].

This law did not stipulate that those hospitals, or the doctors who practice at those hospitals, be reimbursed in any way for providing that stabilizing care, just that they provide it.

Naturally, doctors and hospitals consider this an example of a heavy handed government engaging in cost-shifting. CMS countered with a paper written by one of their economists that what they do here is not technically “cost-shifting” for reasons.

Hospitals now employ staff to get uninsured patients who qualify for Medicaid signed up so they’ll get paid.

(I haven’t seen stats on this in several years, but the last numbers I saw were that around half of US hospitals lose money on an operating basis. They make up the balance in the gift shop, cafeteria, endowment if they are lucky enough to have one, local taxes, or bankruptcy court.)

0 - that’s basically “all hospitals”

1 - the actual rules are more complex, but that’s the gist of it

Re: Insurers rely on doctors whose judgments have been criticized by courts

#60

In many jurisdictions in the US, there is a requirement for the casino and lottery operators to pay a certain percentage (typically 90+%) back as winnings. Do health insurance companies have to follow similar requirements? If so, individual cases of insurances denying insurance would be bad, but would indicate that the overall system is still working reasonably well.

The tragedy at the heart of this "hate health insurance companies" is that they aren't even very profitable businesses. Their margins are actually below average, and pretty poor investments compared to things like tech and finance.
Post reply on HN