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

241–250 of 394 posts

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

#241

Post by gruez »

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…

>The company also has a 1.53% dividend yield[1].

I don't get it, is the implication that it's too high? Too low?

>If you're paying a significant chunk of your yearly earnings to be covered by UNH, you expect the money you paid to go towards providing you with service. Instead, tens of millions of it goes towards a handful of individuals

UNH took in 371.6 billion in revenue and made 23.14 billion in profit last year. "tens of millions" is a rounding error.

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

#243

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Tryk wrote: post #222
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if his death stops that, it's a net positive One, it doesn’t. Two, this applies in loads of cases depending on your individual morality. (Intentionally-spicy takes: abortion providers. Medical researchers who experiment on animals. Farmers. Meat eaters. Anyone American because of our foreign military interventions.)

How can you be so sure it hasn't saved someone? You can make the case that doctors make less mistakes when they don't rush through surgery. https://apnews.com/article/anthem-blue-cross-anesthesia-insu...

> can make the case that doctors make less mistakes when they don't rush through surgery

Healthcare PR is in overdrive right now because people want this story. In truth, the anaesthesia debate started a few days before the shooting.

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

#244

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

lijok wrote: post #234
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The policies consist largely of guidelines regarding what the most cost-effective treatment option for a condition is likely to be. Good insurance companies do try and discuss with providers rather than firing off denial letters willy-nilly, but of course that still ends up being a conflict where your insurance might not let you have the treatment your doctor thinks is best. This conflict is why I've always subscribe…

That sounds very strange to me. If the adjuster has this information, why the need for a review from a consulting doctor? And why would the consulting doctor not be expected to know the costs of these treatment options, at least in relation to alternative options?

In most states (I think all?) insurance companies are required by law to get review from a consulting doctor if they're going to challenge a claim. I don't really think we could expect a doctor to know offhand the relative costs of every treatment for every potential condition in their specialty.

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

#245

Post by uhtred »

mgraczyk wrote: post #161

This guy's condition is tragic, but it's crazy to me that people can read this and come away thinking the insurance companies are the bad guys. Many drugs don't work, they are expensive. If there are no voices in the room saying "we will not pay for expensive drugs that do not work", then healthcare costs will continue spiraling out of control. Single payer healthcare will "solve" this by ensuring that the medication…

Did you read the article? The drugs did work, but only at the high doses prescribed.

In fact I am certain you did not read it, as no decent person could read it and say "but it's crazy to me that people can read this and come away thinking the insurance companies are the bad guys."

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

#246

Post by gruez »

tumult wrote: post #193
threemux wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you and I have different definitions of vastly. Even 68% people who say they are in "fair" or "poor" health say they're satisfied: https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/poll-finding/kff-surve... There's nothing misleading about the KFF data, which has been going for quite some time now. If you recall (I know it seems like a lifetime ago), Obama got in trouble for lying that people could keep their plan if the…

68% is horrible

Says who? For instance this source says that healthcare is near the middle of the pack when it comes to NPS (which is basically how many people are satisified minus people who aren't), and are ahead of "internet software and services".

https://www.retently.com/blog/good-net-promoter-score/

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

#247

Post by jay_kyburz »

rqtwteye wrote: post #118
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.

As an Australian, I have no idea, but can't then a patient sue their employer if they don't receive the care they were promised? Doesn't that make the employer responsible for an employees health?

I can guess the answer.

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

#248

Post by mgraczyk »

uhtred wrote: post #245
mgraczyk wrote: post #161

This guy's condition is tragic, but it's crazy to me that people can read this and come away thinking the insurance companies are the bad guys. Many drugs don't work, they are expensive. If there are no voices in the room saying "we will not pay for expensive drugs that do not work", then healthcare costs will continue spiraling out of control. Single payer healthcare will "solve" this by ensuring that the medication…

Did you read the article? The drugs did work, but only at the high doses prescribed. In fact I am certain you did not read it, as no decent person could read it and say "but it's crazy to me that people can read this and come away thinking the insurance companies are the bad guys."

I read it, the drugs may have worked but it's possible that one or both were not necessary, or that some other change caused it. The relevant question is bigger than "did it work", it's "was the likely causal improvement enough to justify the cost"

These drug combinations are mostly not approved outside the US because of a lack of data

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

#249

Post by mrangle »

inejge wrote: post #238
mrangle wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just what happens It's not "just what happens". That's a politically opportunistic narrative that seeks to incite violence and murder. No one knows why the CEO was killed. None of this type of reasoning justifies or begins to explain the murder even if this were the reason in the shooter's head. Morals aside, it's nonsensical reasoning in total. You're justifying and providing propaganda support for domestic terror…

> No one knows why the CEO was killed. Whatever the shooter's motive was, you can't deny that the public mood is ugly. There was scarcely any sympathy for Thompson, just an avalanche of gleeful mockery and complaints about healthcare claim handling. The problems are widespread enough that having someone snap because, say, their parents' claims have been denied, is completely believable.

[flagged]

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

#250

Post by gruez »

laimewhisps wrote: post #192
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if his death stops that, it's a net positive One, it doesn’t. Two, this applies in loads of cases depending on your individual morality. (Intentionally-spicy takes: abortion providers. Medical researchers who experiment on animals. Farmers. Meat eaters. Anyone American because of our foreign military interventions.)

When the state's monopoly on violence doesn't protect people, people will find a way to protect themselves.

This goes both ways. See: south africa where every rich dude has a private security detail.
Post reply on HN