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

361–370 of 394 posts

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

#361

Post by gopher_space »

loeg wrote: post #303
gopher_space wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) What else in America enjoys an 80% satisfaction rate, broadly speaking? 2) Why didn't this number change after women's healthcare took a massive hit? I'm assuming this is like calculating unemployment rates, where you need to play around with your definitions. Like, services no longer being available can't factor into "satisfaction" in any way. More concretely, if you have two pharmacies in town and one of them cl…

> What else in America enjoys an 80% satisfaction rate, broadly speaking? https://thehill.com/changing-america/3870943-americans-large... > Although personal life satisfaction varies based on income, age, marital status and education level, between 81 percent and 90 percent of Americans are satisfied with their own family life, current housing situation, job, education, community and personal health. > Slightly lower…

> This question is asking about the quality of healthcare you received

Ahh ok, there’s the hair we’re splitting. Can’t be unsatisfied with a service that doesn’t exist I guess.

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

#362

Post by kaonwarb »

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…

Targeted killings of civilians are not "just what happens."

Please do not normalize premeditated murder, even if the culprit has good cause to be extremely angry.

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

#363

Post by s1artibartfast »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #345
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whole thing is a double standard on multiple levels Not really. The double standard is in excusing murder as a political tactic because you don’t like the victim. In this case, the Twitterati will hold their court. And then a real court with real people on the jury will convict. There may also be an inquiry into UnitedHealth, but it will be able to be bludgeoned into partisan death by the law and order bloc. > only…

Agree to disagree I guess. The double standard in my eyes is that because an elite was murdered there’s an outcry for justice from the wealthy. When the police shoots someone or when there is a school shooting it’s just “thoughts and prayers” or “they were probably a criminal anyway”. I do see both sides but the opposite of what you mention though - the ones that sympathize with the CEO are wealthy people who believe…

School shooters are universally condemned, as are egregiously brutal police.

People of all classes sympathize with the victims. Nobody cheers on the school shooters.

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

#364

Post by mgraczyk »

alp1n3_eth wrote: post #351
mgraczyk wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One costs $60/year, the other is over $2M/year and not tested and not widely used outside the US

Remicade and Entyvio have both been heavily tested. Remicade is available in (at least) these countries: - US - Japan - Europe - Turkey - Russia Entyvio: - US - Europe - Canada - Japan - Australia Biologics are the first line of defense for anything over mild IBD. The only effective treatment for above moderate that isn't a combination of other meds is Rinvoq. The small dose items like Azith and Pred are just for fla…

They haven't been heavily tested in combination, and they should be! It just shouldn't be required for insurers to pay for exotic multimillion dollar experiments. There are far better places to be spending that money if the goal is improving healthcare

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

#365

Post by mgraczyk »

alp1n3_eth wrote: post #350
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…

That's called prescribing off-label, and a lot of moderate to severe IBD patients essentially require it because the recommended dosages (FDA approved) aren't high enough to impact the more severe cases of things like Crohns disease. This decision should be between the doctor and the patient. The Mayo Clinic runs different trials all the time that involve multiple biologics being used at the same time, AKA "off-label…

Yeah they are great drugs, I will probably be on a similar drug soon.

And of course the patient should be allowed to take it! It just shouldn't be required that the insurer pay for anything at any price.

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

#366

Post by tinix »

bigfatkitten wrote: post #280
Waterluvian wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seems unlikely that he's be a contract killer. He clearly had minimal experience and no formal training in the use of firearms.

excuse me? what makes you say this?

subsonic low calibur suppressed rounds don't cycle well. going for the slide without hesitation means the shooter has had weapons training imo.

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

#367

Post by robertlagrant »

griomnib wrote: post #162
robertlagrant wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what I've read here they aren't.

I literally have a PhD in social science and studied public opinion research at the graduate level with one of the field’s most highly accomplished political scientists of his generation. I also have a basic modicum of common sense and the ability to observe my environment.

But you're new to sampling bias jokes :-)

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

#368

Post by pixelatedindex »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #363
pixelatedindex wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree to disagree I guess. The double standard in my eyes is that because an elite was murdered there’s an outcry for justice from the wealthy. When the police shoots someone or when there is a school shooting it’s just “thoughts and prayers” or “they were probably a criminal anyway”. I do see both sides but the opposite of what you mention though - the ones that sympathize with the CEO are wealthy people who believe…

School shooters are universally condemned, as are egregiously brutal police. People of all classes sympathize with the victims. Nobody cheers on the school shooters.

They are definitely condemned but no real action is taken to solve the issue, that’s my point. So if they do something when a CEO dies then that’s the double standard.

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

#369

Post by willis936 »

maronato wrote: post #224
willis936 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "stunned if he makes it to court" means "most likely outcome is that he is quietly assassinated by suits".

That’d make him a martyr and a symbol. I can’t see that going well for the suits.

Indeed, but what would be worse would be giving him a platform then making him a martyr. I don't think there is any winning play for the corpos operating within the law.

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

#370

Post by alp1n3_eth »

mgraczyk wrote: post #365
alp1n3_eth wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's called prescribing off-label, and a lot of moderate to severe IBD patients essentially require it because the recommended dosages (FDA approved) aren't high enough to impact the more severe cases of things like Crohns disease. This decision should be between the doctor and the patient. The Mayo Clinic runs different trials all the time that involve multiple biologics being used at the same time, AKA "off-label…

Yeah they are great drugs, I will probably be on a similar drug soon. And of course the patient should be allowed to take it! It just shouldn't be required that the insurer pay for anything at any price.

How would anyone in the US afford a treatment when the system currently supported here inflates prices of these drugs to insane prices? You're defending an inherently corrupt system that leaves the patients in the dark. This isn't supposed to be a market-system, demand is inelastic. They don't have an option to just "go without" life saving medication.

Nothing about this is exotic or an experiment. This isn't some doctor who had a crazy idea he wanted to try, these trials have been run all over the place for 10+ years and show a large amount of success in resistant patients.

The only reason the drugs cost that much is because of how it's designed in the US. Foreign countries (Europe, Australia, England) pay under $1000 per vial / shot for most of these medications, while one shot of a drug like Stelara is $50,000 in the US. Remicade is even cheaper, usually $500 a vial overseas.

The insurance companies want to play this game. They're either in the business of saving lives or they're not, and if they're not, they're actively impeding care to sick individuals. By extension, they are contributing to their deaths if they aren't able to receive the medication they require.

In the US, these pharma companies make multiple billions in revenue from one of these drugs, whereas their overseas sales are in the mid to low millions. It's just the game being played in the US, and there's no reason to let someone die over it. Can't believe someone is actually advocating for this guy, who finally after years found a drug combo that worked, to just die. As there's zero way for an average American to afford 1.2 million dollars a year. Insurance is a risk pool, that's what it's there for.

Post reply on HN