Live data from Hacker News

Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

meaningness.com

131–140 of 170 posts

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Theoretically, then, there should be a niche for an insurer who covers more, who treats you less shitty, but costs more. There is something like this for the wealthy [0]. Obviously, concierge medical services are very expensive, and morally questionable imo. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/business/economy/high-end...

Let's not forget that most people get insurance through their employers, which really limits the choices. Paying up front for medical services - especially in today's "Chargemaster" world where nobody has a clue what anything really costs - requires you to be REALLY rich. A straightforward appendectomy for me required an overnight hospital stay which was billed at a $17K (the surgery, etc, was more). Funny thing abou…

The American medical establishment is the ONLY one I am aware of that should you want a service, you go into the arrangement rarely, if ever, knowing how much you might pay on the other side.

I refuse to p(l)ay. My wife is medical and we have insurance, but I go to the indigent clinic for any infections I may get and buy a $4 prescription. This same experience with a doctor in a nice area would be lots more, even with insurance. Sure, you can tell these bastards you want no tests, etc., but some won't treat you without them, and most are not needed. Think I have strep? That's one test that's cheap. That and flu a/b. Any others are ridiculously pricey.

I spoke to one of the indigent doctors and asked him how he stays in business making $25, $25 there. He says he's not in it for the money. I believe him. He told me that in everyday doctors' offices, the doctors are convinced by the pharmaceutical sales reps to push product. They can win cruises, cars, etc., based on much drugs they push out the door in RX, so the desire to make money trumps being minimalistic in care. Give me only what's needed for the time being. I don't want long-term drugs and refuse to take them. I will only take antibiotics if I need them and only antibiotics. I will never take meds for high blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. Look at the numbers. The threshholds for these numbers have been lowered in the last decade or two to push RXs.

Like I mentioned in another post, the Americans doctors are the Ferengi of medicine. I refuse to pay more than $25 to see the doctor. I've even had stitches for $25. Try getting that price going to a non-indigent clinic. And, the Mexican and Indian doctors at the clinic have been doctors for over 20 years each. I've never been misdiagnosed.

To those who are sick of paying out the nose, look for the cheaper clinics that serve immigrants. They prefer cash, don't need insurance, and actually treat you like a human being.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#132
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standardize what? With a complex medical condition like that every patient is different so it's tough to apply evidence-based medicine practices. The technology for sharing patient records is gradually being standardized. But that won't help if the doctors don't actually take time for a detailed review of the patient's records.

Personally, from my observations as a software engineer married to a doctor and friendly with lots of doctors, and as an occasional participant in the American healthcare system, the general inadequacy of electronic medical systems is one of the most maddening aspects of our system. Epic is a monstrosity and none of the other systems are much better. The tech is outdated, the interfaces are awful, they're incredibly…

> the interfaces are awful

I honestly have no clue how my eye doctor fills their stuff out. It looks like someone discovered Visual Basic's visual design tools, went nuts, then never evaluated whether or not it was a good idea. No alignment on the inputs, they're just placed willy nilly with seemingly no rhyme or reason beyond maaaaybe being contained inside a labeled box. Maybe.

I'm convinced that whoever designed it thought that inputs in the middle of sentences was a super clever idea. Well, "designed."

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#133
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years ago my brother broke his leg horribly. The Ambulance drivers said it was the worst break they had ever seen. Multiple surgeries, months in hospital, rehab, got addicted to morphine in the process etc. etc. At the end of it all was a handshake and "get well soon". There was no bill. Australia.

My father developed Parkinson's a few years back. Got referred to a specialist by his GP - it turned out to be the most senior specialist in the country. Waited a few days for the appointment, never saw a bill. In New Zealand.

I broke my hand when I was a kid. The fragment of a bone was near a tendon and private doctors didn't have absolute consensus on surgery or not surgery for my case.

A friend of my mothers worked in the ministry of public health. She got me an appointment to one of the most important hand doctors in the country. I went there and skipped a line of 100 people wanting to see him. He took a glance at my X-Ray and said there should be surgery with general anesthesia to prevent any damage to the tendon.

There was also no bill.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#134
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standardize what? With a complex medical condition like that every patient is different so it's tough to apply evidence-based medicine practices. The technology for sharing patient records is gradually being standardized. But that won't help if the doctors don't actually take time for a detailed review of the patient's records.

Personally, from my observations as a software engineer married to a doctor and friendly with lots of doctors, and as an occasional participant in the American healthcare system, the general inadequacy of electronic medical systems is one of the most maddening aspects of our system. Epic is a monstrosity and none of the other systems are much better. The tech is outdated, the interfaces are awful, they're incredibly…

Everyone is saying "don't blame the engineers", so I felt the need to post this.

I am a software developer at Epic. I've been here long enough to have gone on sabbatical.

This place has some of the most outdated software engineering practices I've ever seen. There are nearly no automated tests; a team of ~1000 people manually tests everything, including things like scaled pub-sub systems. The company actively maintains about 25 million lines of code. 1000 people couldn't possibly manually cover all of that each year. The majority of known bugs get released.

Internal builds are broken more often than not; there is no CI system exposing this fact. The code is mostly giant, unmaintainable monoliths. I saw a single class that was 50,000 lines long. Imagine trying to modify that monster with no automated tests to support you.

Nearly all of the developers that Epic hires are fresh out of college. Life-critical systems are regularly designed, built, and manually tested entirely by developers with I've seen more than one bug get released that could have killed someone. It wouldn't surprise me if one has.

There is no incentive to change. We make so much money that the execs do not care. It makes me depressed.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#135
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More and more I am becoming convinced "killing people" is an intended "feature" rather than a bug. I'm sure it's not an explicit goal of any but a tiny fraction of participants in the "system", but, cynically, I am becoming convinced it is somebody's goal.

I don't think it's on purpose. It's decomposing a monolith down to microservices, without any verification. Since each player is only responsible for their little corner of the world, no one actually has any sort of responsibility to ensure the overall system still works.

Emergent behaviour.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, from my observations as a software engineer married to a doctor and friendly with lots of doctors, and as an occasional participant in the American healthcare system, the general inadequacy of electronic medical systems is one of the most maddening aspects of our system. Epic is a monstrosity and none of the other systems are much better. The tech is outdated, the interfaces are awful, they're incredibly…

Our situation is almost identical. I refuse to even go to the doctor unless I have something I suspect is going to be life threatening. My wife thinks I'm nuts, but she understands. I grew up in Europe under the "socialist model" and I miss it dearly. If I need to go because I have an infection, I go to the indigent clinic, and pay the $25 for anything they need to do. I then go around the corner to the indigent phar…

While I admire your principles, it seems that by not getting physicals, you appear to be trading off your health for your principles. It is a choice for you to make but might I suggest that if the insurance/healthcare that you get is too expensive, it might be worth making an annual trip to a suitable country to get the physical done. Alternatively, consider paying a doctor with cash for a pre-negotiated price.

These are unsolicited suggestions on my part but my concern is that by not getting these physicals, which arguably have a significant impact in early detection of preventable diseases such as high cholesterol, you are endangering your life. Just my opinion.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#137
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's broken and I am sure it's killing people. I also don't see a technology fix. Anything that requires more than two or three providers is an edge case, this space is 90% edge cases. Vertical integration is the biggest hope. With vertical integration, there is no billing.

There’s also no choice or incentive to improve.

There are plenty of incentives to help care and improve: the better healthcare you provide the less they cost you long term. Vertical integration puts preventative care in the scale.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#138
post #3

"There is, in fact, no system. There are systems, but mostly they don’t talk to each other. I have to do that." That's something I have noticed too. My girlfriend had to visit several doctors for a problem. One was confused about the notes of the other doctor so I proposed to call and figure it out together. The doctor seemed really perplexed about this suggestion and instead ordered the same series of tests again.

Doctors have learned through experience to mistrust data from other sources because it's so often incorrect or incomplete. So they often think that the fastest and safest course of action is to start over from scratch with the patient history, lab tests, etc. One partial solution is the growth of large integrated delivery networks which combine a bunch of medical specialties in a single organization sharing patient records. That way there's more trust and lower barriers to communication.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#139
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obamacare complicated health care because it was designed to preserve the existing system of insurance companies, employer-provided insurance, and patchwork regulations. So, of course, it introduced more patchwork regulations, along with subsidies to the existing players. A single-payer system (Canadian style) would greatly simplify the health care system, largely by cutting out the insurance-company layer for most p…

I think you sort of misunderstood my point. My point was that you'd have an easier time of selling me on it if Obamacare had actually simplified things. Which was one of the promises it made, after all. Explaining why it failed to do so does not contradict my point, it reinforces it. In terms of Obamacare not simplifying things, my engineering answer is "Then why did we implement it?" If a goal is impossible for some…

That's not how politics works. Everyone has a different opinion and priorities. Obamacare made the overall system better by providing more people with affordable access to healthcare, at the cost of increased complexity in some areas. It was a good trade-off. If everyone had insisted on perfection then nothing would have been changed at all.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#140

I'm wondering, is the American health care bad for (upper) middle-class too? let say you have a good job in a big corporation, do you have to worry about healthcare? can you go to a decent hospital for any problem you may have and get appropriate care without spending any dime?

If you work for a company that is big enough for a large group plan, and you pay extra for PPO insurance, you can choose any provider you want. But there are significant out of pocket costs and all the paperwork and disfunction mentioned in this article.
Post reply on HN