Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 394 posts

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#111

Post by paulddraper »

aantix wrote: post #80
whatever1 wrote: post #59

I really don’t get why everyone involved is allowed to have hidden prices. It looks like a highway robbery. I had a relative visiting from Europe and they had to go to the urgent care for some blood and urine tests and consultation. They received a $2,500 bill! My relative told the hospital that they are leaving the country and offered to pay $250 or good luck collecting from abroad. Then something magical happened.…

I needed an adrenalectomy. I called before hand, trying to figure out what I would owe afterwards. No one could give me a price. It’s all vague, we don’t know answers. It’s absurd. I basically got stern - eventually somebody is going to send me a bill with a number on it, so someone knows what this will cost. Still never got a solid number out of them.

They can tell you what they'll bill (if they can't, they're idiots). They can't tell you how your insurance company will adjudicate it, which is what matters.

That doesn't change anything, but FYI it's not just doctor being shady.

I founded https://rivethealth.com to help providers estimate patient liability.

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#112

Post by AtlasBarfed »

whatever1 wrote: post #59

I really don’t get why everyone involved is allowed to have hidden prices. It looks like a highway robbery. I had a relative visiting from Europe and they had to go to the urgent care for some blood and urine tests and consultation. They received a $2,500 bill! My relative told the hospital that they are leaving the country and offered to pay $250 or good luck collecting from abroad. Then something magical happened.…

The other only way a price based system will work is if providers are required to show the bill ahead of time, with full insurance coverage and noncoverage clearly laid out, that is binding to the hospital and the insurance company.

That must be signed off by a conscious capable representative.

Yeah how does that work for emergencies and other situations?

It doesn't! Just like hospitals unable to or refuse to disclose prices.

The system isn't working, it's a steadily sinking ship that the four pigs of medical care: doctors, insurance companies, drug device makers, and trial lawyers feast at while they can.

With political parties in realignment, you'd think that Republicans who are pro working class under trump (allegedly) and Democrats who are pro poor (allegedly) could enact real reform, but I stead the chaos of current politics means corporate even more control

Because corruption is definitely up on both parties since the advent of trumpism.

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#113

Post by dragonwriter »

griomnib wrote: post #75
paulgb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That will be part of the defense argument presented to the jury. That evidence wouldn't be admitted. There's no “the guy deserved it” defense for murder, it's always illegal to kill people.

A) You literally cannot have a murder trial without presenting a motive or evidence of reckless negligence/behavior (eg drunk driving). This is not drunk driving, ergo motive will be central to prosecution and defense alike. B) His lawyers will be the best of the best. C) Jury nullification.

> A) You literally cannot have a murder trial without presenting a motive or evidence of reckless negligence/behavior (eg drunk driving).

You literally can, You have to, of course, prove the elements of the offense, but iif the defense wants to introduce evidence whose only legal relevance is proving an element of the crime, the prosecution will be more than happy to stipulate to the legally relevant fact and render the evidence unnecessary. Generally, the defense will not wish to prove the crime, though.

> B) His lawyers will be the best of the best.

That’s an argument agasinst them spending effort proving a key element of the offense.

> C) Jury nullification.

Jury nullification exists, but evidence whose only purpose (given the facts in dispute) is to promote it is, ipso facto, legally irrelevant and will be excluded for that reason.

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#114

Post by 77pt77 »

krisoft wrote: post #90
77pt77 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The refusal privilege goes from a private company to the state. I've had a broken bone that was visible in an xray and told to go home. Then the state tried to hide it by playing all sorts of weird games to prevent me from getting the ER xray.

> I've had a broken bone that was visible in an xray and told to go home. Please tell us more. Which country would this be in? What bone was broken? The idea that a state engages in some grand conspiracy to spare the expense of a gypsum cast is ludicrous to me. Yes states engage in cost-benefit analysis of treatments but the contentious bits are not around broken bones. More along the lines if particular cancer treat…

There's no conspiracy.

For privacy reasons I refuse to say the country apart than saying it was in Europe.

As for the bone, similar. It was a small bone, common for the trauma I received and clearly visible in the xray.

The private doctor immediately said fractured in a fraction of a second when I eventually was able to get the original xray.

Later on I became quite knowledgeable in this specific fracture and it was obvious, though with no displacement.

What I mean to say is the treatment you get is still highly dependent on your "status", how you look, or weather the doctors like you.

And now I have a titanium screw in me inside a joint for life.

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#115

Post by quitit »

lenerdenator wrote: post #70

The events of the last week are just what happens when a company decides to refuse to meet its customers in the marketplace of sane ideas. You could probably have gotten away with what UNH did if the money wasn't so ridiculous. Thompson himself had a compensation package worth $10.2 million[0] a year. It's reasonable to think that other c-suiters at the company, along with those of its parent organization, made simil…

>People will say that this is necessary to remain competitive, but it just isn't.

In other countries there are private health funds that return all of their profits to their members by simply covering more types of care and lowering premiums, all while still giving their staff very good, very attractive pay. That is clearly a win:win setting without being a government-run entity.

A person doesn't need to earn 100M-200M in a decade of company service. That is an obscene amount of money, and merely opportunistic payment from a system where the foxes are guarding the hen house. Unfortunately the US health system has this pattern repeated through it from insurers, to hospitals and beyond - the money is being funnel to those which can minimise, not optimise, care.

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#116

Post by dragonwriter »

robertlagrant wrote: post #60
griomnib wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s an incredibly strong argument this particular person likely killed tens of thousand of people by his decisions to deny and delay care. This was not an employee carrying out orders from corporate, it’s the guy who is directly responsible for these deaths. This CEO is as much a mass murder as any other tyrant who commanded soldiers to commit atrocities. That will be part of the defense argument presented to the…

"It was targeted" is not normally a defence, though?

It’s actually generally a point that the prosecution would want to prove, as it is premeditation.

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#117

Post by laimewhisps »

bc569a80a344f9c wrote: post #63
bbqfog wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, "every survey" doesn't suggest 80% of Americans are satisfied with their health coverage. Can you site this data? Every person I've ever met IRL has hated the health industry with a burning passion. As you would expect given the exorbitant prices on insurance and care. Also, no one enjoys having their employer hold so much leverage in their life as for most people health insurance is tied to their job.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/468176/americans-sour-healthcar... There’s a huge difference between how people view health care in general, and their own health insurance. According to the linked survey, in 2023 it was notable that only 72% of people had a favorable view of their own health insurance. In recent decades that has indeed sat around 80%, as OP claimed. Again, that’s their _own_ insurance, while views of he…

According to that poll only 65% are happy with their health care coverage (page 8):

https://news.gallup.com/file/poll/654047/2024_12_06%20Health...

On page 5 you can see 79% are dissatisfied with the cost of health care.

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#118

Post by rqtwteye »

lenerdenator wrote: post #70

The events of the last week are just what happens when a company decides to refuse to meet its customers in the marketplace of sane ideas. You could probably have gotten away with what UNH did if the money wasn't so ridiculous. Thompson himself had a compensation package worth $10.2 million[0] a year. It's reasonable to think that other c-suiters at the company, along with those of its parent organization, made simil…

Your first sentence is already wrong. With employer based insurance the company is the customer. The patient is the product.

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#119

Post by [deleted] »

griomnib wrote: post #75
paulgb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That will be part of the defense argument presented to the jury. That evidence wouldn't be admitted. There's no “the guy deserved it” defense for murder, it's always illegal to kill people.

A) You literally cannot have a murder trial without presenting a motive or evidence of reckless negligence/behavior (eg drunk driving). This is not drunk driving, ergo motive will be central to prosecution and defense alike. B) His lawyers will be the best of the best. C) Jury nullification.

[deleted]

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#120

Post by dpkirchner »

Waterluvian wrote: post #15
griomnib wrote: post #6

No jury will convict the shooter, I suspect he’ll “resist arrest” and never make it to a court room for that reason.

If the shooter is a contract killer I think the potential for jury nullification plummets. I also think it’s impossible to predict any way. But I can definitely see that nullification is a real possibility.

Given his behavior it seems unlikely he's a contract killer. I wouldn't expect him to taunt the police with writing on shell casings or Monopoly money in backpacks. It seems like he's just not a complete idiot that has no plan and gets caught right away.
Post reply on HN