Live data from Hacker News

Health insurance claim denial rates range from 13% to 35% by insurer

randalolson.com

71–75 of 75 posts

Re: Health insurance claim denial rates range from 13% to 35% by insurer

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But what you are trying to get at is that there is law about self-referral ("Stark law") but in reality there are exceptions that render it fairly useless What are the exceptions that render it useless? I have never heard of them in my 10+ years of hearing about it. I did not know that I-cards do office work, not my area of medicine. IR is in the angio lab daily without cataracts, thyroid cancer, etc., so that part…

> What are the exceptions that render it useless? I have never heard of them in my 10+ years of hearing about it. It sounds so unlikely that there is a blanket rule that you can’t refer to something you have a shareholding in. If you own a shareholding in a hospital you work at, you can’t refer internally for a test? I just don’t believe that. Edit: I did some hunting. ‘Per click’ payments or bonus payments based on…

> It looks like owning a chunk of the place you refer to is fine

The article you link to says that anyone can be liable even if she didn't realize her referral violates the law.

I cannot imagine any reasonable physician risking this after the decades of training required to get a doctor. I would not, for sure.

From the article you sent:

Some of the most widely used regulatory exceptions are longstanding and foundational across healthcare organizations. These include:

    In-office ancillary services exception: Allows physicians in the same practice to refer patients internally for DHS such as lab work or therapy, as long as certain supervision, location, and billing criteria are met.

    Rental of office space exception: Permits lease agreements between a physician and an entity, but only if the space is used exclusively for legitimate business purposes, rent is fair market value, and the agreement is in writing for at least one year.

    Employment exception: Protects compensation arrangements between hospitals and employed physicians, as long as compensation is consistent with fair market value and is not based on referral volume.

    Personal service arrangements exception: Covers contracts where a physician provides services (like medical directorships) to a DHS entity. The agreement must outline duties, last at least one year, and pay a fixed, fair-market-value fee unrelated to referrals.
Each of these exceptions includes detailed requirements, and missing even one element, like failing to document the arrangement in writing, can render the exception invalid. This is especially important when physicians have investment interests in joint ventures or ancillary service providers.

Re: Health insurance claim denial rates range from 13% to 35% by insurer

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted that they use the term “medically necessary” which is a very low standard. There is also “medically reasonable”. For example getting your teeth cleaned professionally is not medically necessary. But it’s medically reasonable. I don’t want a health insurance that only does “Medically necessary” things.

Dental is completely different than medical in the U.S. and a different insurer/carrier. Sorry, but comparing apples to oranges here.

You shouldn't be getting downvoted.

For those who don't know, I'd recommend the Freakonomics The Economics of Everyday Things episode on dental insurance. IIRC, dental "insurance" has little in common with insurance in general. As a financial product, it's more like an invested savings account.

Re: Health insurance claim denial rates range from 13% to 35% by insurer

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are the exceptions that render it useless? I have never heard of them in my 10+ years of hearing about it. It sounds so unlikely that there is a blanket rule that you can’t refer to something you have a shareholding in. If you own a shareholding in a hospital you work at, you can’t refer internally for a test? I just don’t believe that. Edit: I did some hunting. ‘Per click’ payments or bonus payments based on…

> It looks like owning a chunk of the place you refer to is fine The article you link to says that anyone can be liable even if she didn't realize her referral violates the law. I cannot imagine any reasonable physician risking this after the decades of training required to get a doctor. I would not, for sure. From the article you sent: Some of the most widely used regulatory exceptions are longstanding and foundatio…

It’s exactly those points that allow referral to entities in which physicians have a financial interest. That’s why I provided the link.

Otherwise they’d be breaking the law with investment funds that hold stocks in large healthcare companies etc.

Re: Health insurance claim denial rates range from 13% to 35% by insurer

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It looks like owning a chunk of the place you refer to is fine The article you link to says that anyone can be liable even if she didn't realize her referral violates the law. I cannot imagine any reasonable physician risking this after the decades of training required to get a doctor. I would not, for sure. From the article you sent: Some of the most widely used regulatory exceptions are longstanding and foundatio…

It’s exactly those points that allow referral to entities in which physicians have a financial interest. That’s why I provided the link. Otherwise they’d be breaking the law with investment funds that hold stocks in large healthcare companies etc.

I remind you that we began this with the idea that doctors are prescribing treatments for their own financial benefit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48621445

At the diffuse 401k ownership level, individual actions are not relevant - the Stark law is clearly dealing with the first case and that was how this whole discussion began.

Re: Health insurance claim denial rates range from 13% to 35% by insurer

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moral hazard is making a product with nearly totally inelastic demand a multi layered adversarial free market with structural price opacity. Thanks Reagan!

Reagan hasn't been president for close to 40 years and died more than 20 years ago. At what point do we accept responsibility for this instead of blaming dead presidents?

Reagan didn’t do it alone, and the philosophy that created this monstrosity inexplicably keeps marching along as if all it needs is more patches and it’s the fault of the demand side and supply side for their philosophical view that “free markets are magic” under every scenario, trundling through the wreckage holding hope as a strategy. As the only country with this problem, maybe the philosophy is wrong.

I blamed Reagan because he managed to effect the philosophy in law and regulation, and therefore create the inertia. I can blame him for his role until the end of time, just as I can blame Julius Caesar for ending the Roman republic long after his death (even that happened shortly after his actions!)

But it’s ok - the current slow motion disaster unfolding will make the hellscape of reaganomics look like a brilliant insight as we play out early stage idiocracy.

Post reply on HN