Live data from Hacker News

Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise

nypost.com

221–230 of 301 posts

Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise

#221
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Otoh some medical providers like to over bill and over treat.

Yes, insurance companies deny claims, but this is mostly because they don't have the money to pay for things most of their money is spent on care in the first place: they're forced to optimize and people get hurt in the process. Providers do far more damage. UHCs profit margins are only 6%, their operating costs are extremely low[0], and if you look across G7 insurers in the US pay more than the government does in ev…

Sounds like the business model they’ve decided to use might not be viable.

I mean, actually it makes sense. Their job is to pay for expensive procedures, sometimes quite urgently needed. They can’t really ethically insert themselves into the decision making process, so if these companies were run ethically they’d be signing themselves up for unlimited risk.

Maybe they shouldn’t exist.

Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Otoh some medical providers like to over bill and over treat.

It seems to me that should then be handled by the legal system or perhaps the licensing boards. That is to say, the insurance companies should be forbidden from denying coverage and if they believe that something is going on then they can alert the police or take the doctor to court.

Will never happen. Doctors have strong lobbying of their own and they really like their second vacation homes and Porsches.

Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise

#224
post #219
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, insurance companies deny claims, but this is mostly because they don't have the money to pay for things most of their money is spent on care in the first place: they're forced to optimize and people get hurt in the process. Providers do far more damage. UHCs profit margins are only 6%, their operating costs are extremely low[0], and if you look across G7 insurers in the US pay more than the government does in ev…

Why are the providers behaving differently and in different circumstances in US vs. Japan/Germany/France?

USA Anti-trust is on life support and there is generally very little political willpower to disentrench incumbent capital interests.

Wealthy lobbyists for providers and health insurance companies prevent any change basically.

Also misguided American exceptionalism whereas people think the healthcare standards will go down significantly if there is a public option (as if they weren't already down for the things people can actually afford).

Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise

#225
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Underappreciated reality. Because customer-insurer relationships are the only side of the healthcare system that most people see, they're oblivious to what are actually pass-through insurer-provider issues. As you said, the reality is that insurers operate with pretty reasonable margins and incredibly meager per-claim overhead costs. They're stuck trying to make 2 + 1 = 2. If the finger should be pointed at root caus…

What’s the source of limited supply of doctors meme? Is there a good rundown somewhere? Because anecdotally, among my friends, I’ve never known someone to not make it through the system to practicing medicine who wanted to, but I do know several who persevered despite being real idiots. I don’t see how opening the pool wider would lead to better care.

https://www.aamc.org/news/press-releases/aamc-report-reinfor...

TLDR 1. Society is getting older demographically.

2. Physicians are getting older demographically and have stopped working.

3. Many rural areas and minorities are already underserved.

Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise

#226
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Underappreciated reality. Because customer-insurer relationships are the only side of the healthcare system that most people see, they're oblivious to what are actually pass-through insurer-provider issues. As you said, the reality is that insurers operate with pretty reasonable margins and incredibly meager per-claim overhead costs. They're stuck trying to make 2 + 1 = 2. If the finger should be pointed at root caus…

What’s the source of limited supply of doctors meme? Is there a good rundown somewhere? Because anecdotally, among my friends, I’ve never known someone to not make it through the system to practicing medicine who wanted to, but I do know several who persevered despite being real idiots. I don’t see how opening the pool wider would lead to better care.

1. There is a cap on the number of doctors that the US can churn out since Medicare funds most of their training. That number is 140,000. This inherently limits supply. This is the biggest issue.[0]

2. There are limited spots in certain residency programs due to how competitive they are. Ergo those specialties are artificially more lucrative. Dermatology is a good example.

3. Becoming a doctor is temporally arduous: 11 to 15 years! Why the hell do people need to spend four years of time and money on a bachelor's degree instead of entering a medical program directly?

4. Becoming a doctor is financially arduous. You will be in debt for four years of undergrad, then four years of medical school, and then you'll be paid garbage for 3-7 years of residency. High interest rates exacerbate this.

5. Residency is hell.

6. Working in a hospital is often hell. Burn out is very real.

7. There are many, many professions which provide a far better standard of living.

[0]: https://www.aamc.org/news/press-releases/new-aamc-report-sho...

Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise

#227
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse... how? Shouldn't it depend on context a LOT? Like a mass murderer getting off on a technicality for example. Considering that a lot of innocent people are murdered by the state via jury and trial in the US the distinction isn't very clear imo.

> Considering that a lot of innocent people are murdered by the state via jury and trial in the US the distinction isn't very clear imo. ~211 people were killed via trial sentence in the US in the last 10 years [0]. Presumably some of them weren't innocent. In the same time period (conservatively) 8500 were killed by law enforcement outside of the legal process [1]. Both are problematic, but calling [0] https://death…

The Doctor Who meme here applies.

Is 5 a lot?

Depends. Potatoes? No. Murder? Yes.

Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise

#228
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Otoh some medical providers like to over bill and over treat.

Yes, insurance companies deny claims, but this is mostly because they don't have the money to pay for things most of their money is spent on care in the first place: they're forced to optimize and people get hurt in the process. Providers do far more damage. UHCs profit margins are only 6%, their operating costs are extremely low[0], and if you look across G7 insurers in the US pay more than the government does in ev…

Please allow me to counter, from the perspective of someone who owned a medical practice for much of my adult life:

- The ACA limits the amount of money, as a percent of revenue, that insurance companies collect as profit. If they wish to increase profit, their primary option is to collect higher premiums and pay more benefits.

- (No experience with keeping someone alive overnight. I'm sure it's happened and couldn't disprove it in any case.)

- Of course they have optimized billing. The current fiasco has byzantine rules for payment. For instance, you know how your dermatologist offers you smoking cessation and weight loss classes? That's because if they offer it to you, insurance rules allow them to bill the encounter as an enhanced care visit which pays more. This isn't an exaggeration. The insurance rules say "we'll pay you an extra 30% if you ask about their smoking and weight". The doctor can earn more simply by following those rules. Again, of course providers do this! If my boss gave me a 20% raise for asking him each morning if he'd like me to make him a sandwich, even knowing he hates breakfast sandwiches, you bet I'm doing it.

- That's complicated. If a hospital violates the insurer's rules, they don't get paid for seeing the patient. Yes, the situation you described is horrid, but no provider can afford to write off every patient. It's the insurers who said they wouldn't pay until the patient is seriously sick.

- Surveys have shown that as much as 60% of small practices' management overhead involves staffing people to deal with insurance companies, process claims, optimize billing (see above), negotiate pre-approvals, and so on. They have higher overheads because the insurers require it, not because they want to.

- Well, according to the insurers trying to weasel out of paying for it. For example, a patient came to my wife with an obvious soft tissue injury. She ordered an MRI to diagnose it. The insurer refused the approval until my wife took an X-ray first because it's cheaper. X-rays also don't show soft tissue injuries. (Don't correct me; I know the exceptions here and they're not relevant to this.) So it was the insurer who demanded my wife perform a wholly useless test before they'd pay for the effective one.

- I'm not willing to lower the quality of physicians. Other studies have shown that the lack of upcoming doctors is due to fewer people willing to put up with the insane stress levels for mediocre pay. The stereotype of a doctor heading out at noon for an afternoon of golf are largely over for nearly all specialties. Frankly, there are many jobs that pay better with less stress and less personal responsibility.

- That's laughably wrong. No one gets a new knee for the fun of it. It's a major surgery with long and challenging recovery that people get because they're otherwise unable to function normally.

- There is no way to handle this efficiently. It's an utter morass.

Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until the day we can point to a country that implements a direct democracy with a fair way to obtain citizenship for whoever is involved in its society, all laws will always remain a tool of a minority to arbitrarily rule a majority. The concern is not whether laws are rights or wrongs, but which privileges and which hurts they reinforce for which classes in the society where the national myth is eager to present the…

> Until the day we can point to a country that implements a direct democracy with a fair way to obtain citizenship for whoever is involved in its society, all laws will always remain a tool of a minority to arbitrarily rule a majority. There's Switzerland.

Switzerland definitely shows interesting political paths, they nonetheless don’t pretend to be a direct democracy.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/democracy/swiss-democracy-in-an...

Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise

#230
post #219
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, insurance companies deny claims, but this is mostly because they don't have the money to pay for things most of their money is spent on care in the first place: they're forced to optimize and people get hurt in the process. Providers do far more damage. UHCs profit margins are only 6%, their operating costs are extremely low[0], and if you look across G7 insurers in the US pay more than the government does in ev…

Why are the providers behaving differently and in different circumstances in US vs. Japan/Germany/France?

It is for the same reason why “Medicare Advantage” plans exist. These plans are operated by private companies using tactics to deny health coverage.

https://www.newsweek.com/how-medicare-advantage-scams-senior...

Post reply on HN