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

291–300 of 394 posts

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

#291

Post by mgraczyk »

uhtred wrote: post #286
mgraczyk wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

All that matters to the patient is that it worked.

Perhaps, but it may not actually work and there are trade-offs. For example if the treatment were $1T we obviously would not do it.

How do we allocate resources? Who gets to decide? These questions don't disappear when you change policies, it's just the answers that change

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

#292

Post by emeril »

mrangle wrote: post #249
inejge wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]

where's your evidence of this massive sympathy?

I bet even his own family isn't too sad about this - most C-Levels I've worked with are grade A psychopaths whose family doesn't care for them besides money

this guy is probably moderately responsible for a significant amount of needless suffering and death

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

#293

Post by standardUser »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #214
standardUser wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It speaks to the deep and broad frustration among Americans towards our healthcare system. This isn't just executives or politicians "screwing people over" like we see in so many other realms. There's a significant number of Americans who love someone who has actually died or suffered severer/permanent physical distress for the sake of insurance company profits. When someone's family gets blown up from the sky and th…

I just don't see your point. I don't pretend not to understand this phenomenon, and the need for healthcare reform has always been one of my strongest political beliefs. But that doesn't mean murder is any less bad! Is the implication that this kind of murder can only happen as an expression of widespread popular anger? I definitely don't think that's so. There are plenty of places in the world where corporate execut…

Change the term "the need for healthcare reform" with "the need to stop insurance executives from killing my mother" and you may have an easier time understanding it. It's personal. Make it personal for thousands of people and some of them will inevitably be radicalized.

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

#294

Post by sangnoir »

mrangle wrote: post #263
cyberax wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The gleeful mockery is largely from anonymous accounts. I remember when the same type of thing was attributed to "Russian bots" after the 2016 election. I worked in medical-adjacent areas for a decade. I dated a doctor, and I asked him what people feel in his hospital about that. He said that basically NOBODY has any sympathy for this CEO. The most concern is at the level of "we shouldn't condone murders". And you…

[flagged]

> Thompson is not responsible for the existence of the insurance industry

Surely he bears some responsibility for making UHC the worst to deal with and the having the highest rejection rate?

> What I do see is a strong push by media ...

Why would the media push a narrative against any executive if it wasn't already part of the zeitgeist? The media has consistently exhibited strong class solidarity in my experience.

> Doctors well-know this, and they become doctors knowing this.

I'm sure you are aware that doctors are not a monolith. Gp is not making things up: I'll second them with the less-than-sorrowful response elicited by the news of the CEOs demise among administrative staff in my circles (who know how the industry works and what role is performs)

> The Media last sympathized with and incited murderous violence in the 2020 election period.

Gee, I wonder if the public discontent the media and politicians tapped into in 2020 has abated or gotten worse since. It appears you refuse to acknowledge that a huge fraction of the population is unhappy with the status quo across the world (see number of governments voted out). That America has a populist president-elect isn't surprising

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

#295

Post by standardUser »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #206
standardUser wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It speaks to the deep and broad frustration among Americans towards our healthcare system. This isn't just executives or politicians "screwing people over" like we see in so many other realms. There's a significant number of Americans who love someone who has actually died or suffered severer/permanent physical distress for the sake of insurance company profits. When someone's family gets blown up from the sky and th…

We actually have no sure idea what the motives of the individual were. There's the obvious angle. Then, maybe Thompson paid someone to kill him, so his family could get an insurance payout. Maybe Thompson was fucking the shooter's ex girlfriend, and he wanted to mislead investigators as to why Thompson was killed. Maybe it's a Russian operation to sow discord in the US. Etc

We have a good idea. Not no idea. And we know exactly how people are responding to the killing, regardless of motive, so we don't have to split hairs on that at all.

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

#296

Post by maxerickson »

mgraczyk wrote: post #266
maxerickson wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the dual biologic be at least $120k per year? It's at least $60,000, not $60.

I meant Prednisone is $60/year. I'm not sure that's quite right but it's very cheap, that's roughly my out of pocket cost in the US Just one of the biologics is 500k/year

So you are mischaracterizing the biologics then. They are indicated for UC in the US. It's just that the doctor thought that combined, higher doses would work better (and apparently it did).

The prednisone still had him shitting blood 20 times a day. Cheap indeed.

How do we even have a conversation if you take drugs that are approved for treating a condition and just hand wave that they are "not tested"?

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2024/76...

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/10...

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

#297

Post by voisin »

breadwinner wrote: post #207
davideous wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting prices by supply-and-demand and having insurance "pay for whatever is needed regardless of the cost" are incompatible. Insurance blocks the pricing cost signal back to the patient. Insurance also prevents better doctors that provide better service from charging more because the patients will pay for it. An example: about 20 years ago I had just a major medical plan and I was at urgent care for a problem. Afte…

Patients must be incentivized to understand their care and question care that is unnecessary and wasteful. The partial solution you mention is the way to go, and if every employer adopted it, it will change the culture, and will at that point become a full solution.

Capitalist structures have a long history of pushing ownership of problems to the powerless individual, then exploiting information asymmetries (and actively obfuscating the truth that would allow for better informed decisions) for profit.

Suggesting that the average person should be able to make medical decisions and override their health care provider’s recommendation is ridiculous.

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

#298

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

wiml wrote: post #251
IncreasePosts wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"internet bubbles" don't exist solely on the Internet, they exist in the minds of people spending a lot of time on the internet on certain sites. They manifest on the Internet commonly. But they also manifest in the "real world" when those people communicate with others. Go ahead and deceive yourself that you're not in an echo chamber. I'm sure that will help you understand reality better.

You imply that you have access to some unvarnished truth, unlike the other commenters who are trapped in their bubbles. What is your justification for this belief? Is it possible for other people to have access to this higher truth, or is it something innate to you?

It's easy for other people to have access to this higher truth, and most people do. Basically by definition, the sentiments which are truly "overwhelmingly shared" are the sentiments you can talk openly about with strangers without fear that you might leave a bad impression. I think the vast majority of people supporting the CEO's murder would immediately understand that they should not bring it up when meeting their in-laws for the first time or something.

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

#299

Post by rqtwteye »

criddell wrote: post #171
rqtwteye wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Tens of millions of people are buying insurance through the ACA directly from companies like United.

And more should do so. Employer based insurance should be abolished. I would also close the VA. One health system for all

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

#300

Post by bigfatkitten »

mrangle wrote: post #275
bigfatkitten wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's massive sympathy for Thompson. From whom? Other than LinkedIn posts from his fellow travellers in the health insurance industry, significant public expression of sympathy is hard to find.

>From whom? Everyone who doesn't sympathize with violent political extremism. In other words everyone who isn't a bot, isn't on any number of watchlists, isn't terminally online, isn't a drug addled crazy, or isn't one of the media that exists to stir them up for political purpose.

So everyone who messaged you privately in support of your position?
Post reply on HN