i absolutely know what i am talking about, and i am going to call bullshit right here.
annual physicals and well visits are not covered. and if they are, they are not covered at nearly the same reimbursement rate as a sick visit. even for school aged kids who have to have an annual physical for school, and for those that need a preparticipation physical for sports. i have to tell them when they call that an annual physical is not covered by their insurance and if they want to submit it to insurance they can, but if it gets denied it costs $168. sometimes they call their insurance company to ask them to cover it, and they get maybe $20 paid and sometimes they don't. all i know is i have to track down deadbeat parents to get the money for their kid's physical that the insurance did not cover. so yeah...
i dunno, 25 year olds need annual physicals all the time. in case you have not looked around, we have a lot of obese people in their 20s. obesity is the leading cause of chronic illness. these are people with hypertension, high cholesterol, thyroid problems, diabetes, etc and they all require yearly checkups, and most of them require refills on their maintenance medications, and this is normally done at the annual physical. if they are asymptomatic and are not sick they are called well visits. if they come in while sick it is not a well visit, so that is when it is typically covered..
well visits are covered under medicaid and medicare. and mind you medicare covers not only elderly, but those on disability.
Those obese visits you're talking about are not well care. Obesity is a recognized illness, and pcps get them covered every time.
As for well visits, they are covered to pcps. Not to specialists. What kind of provider are you? Im guessing not Im or fp or ped.
i am telling you they are still billed as annual checkups/well visits if there are no new complaints or symptoms. why do you think they ask if you are sick or if you have a problem when you call to make the appointment? i get an annual physical and i owe about $120 every year because insurance does not cover it. it covers my lab work and $40 of the visit and that's it.
no we are not fp or im. we are orthopedic mds. we see all ages, peds to elderly. i think in the five years i have been there we have seen a 1 year old all the way to a 98 year old. and we are the only one in a 30 mile radius that takes medicaid. not because they definitely pay, but because it is the right thing to do, because somebody has to see those people. we are in a group of 30 docs and the im guys are always complaining in meetings that they are not getting paid by the private insurances. hell we are specialists and we get pennies on the dollar for some services. fracture care for one. fracture care is an umbrella code that includes all of your visits, copays, x rays, casting, splinting for 3 months. a fracture code bills insurance about $900. we are lucky to see 60% of that from insurance and the patient ends up owing a lot of money.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
sorry man, re. 'theres details missing here' i hope your joking.
re. the employer base HMO coverage, that was irrelevant, my wife was (at that time) a private contractor/1099 as are millions of other americans in the same boat. they gotta shop for a privately insured plan. sure there are catastrophic plans (which she did for 1 year), boy those are really fkd up.
San Diego Sports Arena - Oct 25, 2000 MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006 Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006 New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010 Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011 Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012 EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012 Dallas-November 2013 OKC-November 2013 ACL 2-October 2014 Fenway Night 1, August 2016 Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018 Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023 Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023 Austin, Night 1 September 2023 Austin, Night 2 September 2023
to focus on just the individual mandate...don't people realize that those who are uninsured in this country are already getting their bill picked up by the rest of the country? Mandating that everyone has insurance doesn't really change anything except people might actually cut down on ER visits when they have access to a doctor on a more regular basis...and i guess since I view myself as more of a progressive I'm ok with us covering uninsured people...kinda makes some sense to make sure people are healthy when we can spend around 700 billion a year on defense against nuclear weapons and terrorists but can't spend on our own health. we have a very good health system for some and a kinda shitty system for a lot. this bill isn't perfect by any means but i think it's a great starting point to build on.
I would much rather, as a society, pay for 'unnecessary' tests than not pay for necessary ones.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Why can't we pay for necessary ones and NOT unnecessary ones?
And some unnecessary ones are detriments to your health.
Because we don't live in a perfect world. Who decides who is necessary and what is not? At the moment, it's the health insurance companies that won't pay for tests until they know that the patient is terminal. So they don't have to pay for treatment. They wait until you're sick enough that you won't get better... Is that the kind of system you really want?
Why can't we pay for necessary ones and NOT unnecessary ones?
And some unnecessary ones are detriments to your health.
Because we don't live in a perfect world. Who decides who is necessary and what is not? At the moment, it's the health insurance companies that won't pay for tests until they know that the patient is terminal. So they don't have to pay for treatment. They wait until you're sick enough that you won't get better... Is that the kind of system you really want?
You are misinformed.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
to focus on just the individual mandate...don't people realize that those who are uninsured in this country are already getting their bill picked up by the rest of the country? Mandating that everyone has insurance doesn't really change anything except people might actually cut down on ER visits when they have access to a doctor on a more regular basis...and i guess since I view myself as more of a progressive I'm ok with us covering uninsured people...kinda makes some sense to make sure people are healthy when we can spend around 700 billion a year on defense against nuclear weapons and terrorists but can't spend on our own health. we have a very good health system for some and a kinda shitty system for a lot. this bill isn't perfect by any means but i think it's a great starting point to build on.
The focus is on the individual mandate because the Federal government doesn't have the authority to mandate citizens to purchase a product. Everything else you typed is irrelevant if the bill itself isn't constitutional. That is why the focus IS on the mandate.
Why can't we pay for necessary ones and NOT unnecessary ones?
And some unnecessary ones are detriments to your health.
Because we don't live in a perfect world. Who decides who is necessary and what is not? At the moment, it's the health insurance companies that won't pay for tests until they know that the patient is terminal. So they don't have to pay for treatment. They wait until you're sick enough that you won't get better... Is that the kind of system you really want?
You are misinformed.
Well no. I'm not. And the sad thing is that the health insurance companies have convinced you otherwise. They pour millions into the campaigns of politicians who'll say things like "death panels" and "pull the plug on gramma" and the sheep all follow.
Ok I'll give you this... If a person has great coverage, they often DO get tests they don't need because e doctors know the insurance will pay for it.
But that's a lot less common than you're lead to believe. What's more common is people not getting tests until it's too late. My grandfather died because although his doctor knew he had cancer, he couldn't get the proper tests approved until it was way too late to do anything about it.
completely agree that the playing field is more even. i was just saying that if you are a rich person in canada you can always go to America or somewhere to get faster services. the people with the greatest health coverage in canada are the Hockey players.
Meh... I'm "rich" (-er than the average American) and live in America and I still got better services in Canada when I was making 40K a year.
Yes, I have an amazing personal doctor who answers my emails at 6 AM, but I also have a PPO that costs more per year than most people make in two months.
My last motorcycle accident when I went to an emergency room... I laid there for 3 hours begging for morphine before I even saw a doctor. The health care down in America... ain't so great.
sorry went away for the weekend and didn't have internet there. Don't get me wrong, i love the Canadian health care system even with it faults. but i do have to say that depending on where you are in Canada you might wait 3 hours or more in the emergency room. they base entry on how important your issue is.
I would much rather, as a society, pay for 'unnecessary' tests than not pay for necessary ones.
Why can't we pay for necessary ones and NOT unnecessary ones?
And some unnecessary ones are detriments to your health.
i understand what you are saying but like i said before. who should have the power to determine that?
also sometimes what is considered unnecessary test are necessary. i remember back in the 80's and early 90's many women where not being test for HIV cause most people believed that it was just a gay man issues. i think we all know now that this is not correct.
sorry went away for the weekend and didn't have internet there. Don't get me wrong, i love the Canadian health care system even with it faults. but i do have to say that depending on where you are in Canada you might wait 3 hours or more in the emergency room. they base entry on how important your issue is.
True.
But one of the performers I work with had a severely broken collarbone AND not only waited the 3 hours to be seen, once they found he didn't have insurance, they gave him a few x rays, a bottle of pain killers and a cloth sling, sent him home without the surgery he needed and sent him a bill for $30,000.
He's quite deformed because of how bad the bones healed.
That never would have happened in Canada.
Yes, in some places you have to wait a long time for care in Canada butbat least you get it.
sorry went away for the weekend and didn't have internet there. Don't get me wrong, i love the Canadian health care system even with it faults. but i do have to say that depending on where you are in Canada you might wait 3 hours or more in the emergency room. they base entry on how important your issue is.
True.
But one of the performers I work with had a severely broken collarbone AND not only waited the 3 hours to be seen, once they found he didn't have insurance, they gave him a few x rays, a bottle of pain killers and a cloth sling, sent him home without the surgery he needed and sent him a bill for $30,000.
He's quite deformed because of how bad the bones healed.
That never would have happened in Canada.
Yes, in some places you have to wait a long time for care in Canada butbat least you get it.
holy fuck! i should send this post to many people in Canada who complain about our health care system. I also broke a collarbone and was in a lot of pain. it was a Saturday night and really busy in the emergency room. i think i waited i think about 10 minutes but i think it was also because i was a falling down alot due to what i found out was a concussion.
I would much rather, as a society, pay for 'unnecessary' tests than not pay for necessary ones.
Why can't we pay for necessary ones and NOT unnecessary ones?
And some unnecessary ones are detriments to your health.
i understand what you are saying but like i said before. who should have the power to determine that?
also sometimes what is considered unnecessary test are necessary. i remember back in the 80's and early 90's many women where not being test for HIV cause most people believed that it was just a gay man issues. i think we all know now that this is not correct.
Doctors should determine what is necessary and what is not. Who wouldn't think that?
And who thinks insurance companies don't have DOCTORS doing that? That's the misinformed part. The media here has folks believing CFO's are. That is 100% incorrect. The insurance companies are regulated and must file all medical protocols with CMS (For Medicare) or the State (For Medicaid and Commercial/Individual). There are also stringent appeal rights, third party reviews, etc.
If they made decisions not based on medical criteria, they would be put out of business.
Are they perfect - no. But, anyone who thinks their pesonal doctor is - well - there's a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale.
As for the HIV testing - that was not insurance protocol - that was common misconception. It happens all the time in life. And that "conventional wisdom" changed for the better.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
And who thinks insurance companies don't have DOCTORS doing that?
Wow.
And you called ME "misinformed."
Although yes... I suppose a few doctors rubber stamp the paperwork, the jobs of those people are "find evidence of pre-existing conditions so we can cancel their claims now that they're sick."
But one of the performers I work with had a severely broken collarbone AND not only waited the 3 hours to be seen, once they found he didn't have insurance, they gave him a few x rays, a bottle of pain killers and a cloth sling, sent him home without the surgery he needed and sent him a bill for $30,000.
He's quite deformed because of how bad the bones healed.
That never would have happened in Canada.
Yes, in some places you have to wait a long time for care in Canada butbat least you get it.
Here's the (not so) funny part of this story - you blame the insurance company for this. When, in fact it was the facility that acted poorly. You are right about waiting times in ER's. It is abhorrent at some places. And legally, they are required to provide treatment regardless of insurance. You should have reported them if you believe they provided sub-par service. They could lose their license for that.
But, look at the bill he got - $30,000! Do you think the service he got (let alone the service he should have gotten) was worth $30,000? I certainly hope he didn't pay that. What you describe is less than $1,000.
Now, let's say we have this perfect world Universal Coverage you seek - would you like your tax dollars to go up b/c the Feds are paying $30,000 for a $750 service? And would your friend have had a problem not being covered by insurance if they billed him appropriately rather than artificially inflating the bill so they could negotiate based on a % discount off billed rather than based on the actual value of the service?
What other industry do we allow producers/providers to do such a thing?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
And who thinks insurance companies don't have DOCTORS doing that?
Wow.
And you called ME "misinformed."
Although yes... I suppose a few doctors rubber stamp the paperwork, the jobs of those people are "find evidence of pre-existing conditions so we can cancel their claims now that they're sick."
Have you gotten a clue yet that I work at one of these "evil" companies? And, I am not a doctor. And, I know who makes the decisions here and how they make them. I also know the inner workings of several other large insurers, how they work and the legal requirements we are all under.
So, yes, I can confidently say you are misinformed.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Have you gotten a clue yet that I work at one of these "evil" companies? And, I am not a doctor. And, I know who makes the decisions here and how they make them. I also know the inner workings of several other large insurers, how they work and the legal requirements we are all under.
So, yes, I can confidently say you are misinformed.
Ah yeah... "legal requirements."
That's just a way of saying "let's see how we can get this around the laws."
If you work for one of the companies, you know about how many people have paid for years and then had their coverage cancelled once they needed because someone - doctor or otherwise - was able to find a legal loophole and a "pre-existing condition."
Here's the (not so) funny part of this story - you blame the insurance company for this.
Oh... no, I don't.
I blame the entire system that's meant to make money and not make people well. This isn't an insurance company's fault.
And legally, they are required to provide treatment regardless of insurance. You should have reported them if you believe they provided sub-par service.
They did "treat" him. They gave him a few x-rays, some drugs and a sling.
But, look at the bill he got - $30,000! Do you think the service he got (let alone the service he should have gotten) was worth $30,000? I certainly hope he didn't pay that. What you describe is less than $1,000.
Agreed. No, of course he didn't pay it. He's 21 with a part time job and no insurance. He makes 30K in about 2 years.
Now, let's say we have this perfect world Universal Coverage you seek - would you like your tax dollars to go up b/c the Feds are paying $30,000 for a $750 service?
Coming from Canada.. I know that it just doesn't happen like that up there. Their system isn't built around wringing as much money from people as they can.
I will give you 2 stories. Some details are stricken for HIPAA reasons.
1. Middle aged woman has diabetes, CHF and had spinal fusion surgery. Keeps breaking bones in falls in their house. PCP doesn't have a clue what to do. Specialists have no ideas. Nurse from insurance company visits house - sees the patient has high steps in and out of the house b/c it's an older house and not under current code. HEALTH insurance company hires and pays someone to design and build an elaborate ramp (it actually had to loop around once b/c the stairs were so steep), and now the woman can get in and out of her house without any problem. BTW, elaborate privately designed ramps are not covered by insurance coverage. Patient's bill - $0. According to the woman - life changing. Would Canada's system even consider this (let alone pay for it)?
2. Young girl has a serious illness from birth. 2 Nuerosurgeons independently determine that a particular surgery is not recommended b/c the risks far outweigh the remotely possible reward (which would be temporary anyway). 3rd surgeon determines it's necessary, but in submitting the paperwork submits literature that STONGLY recommends that it is contra-indicated (As in not only is it unnecessary, but is detrimental). Now, the company only finds out about the first 2 doctor's findings b/c the 3rd surgeon submitted it with the medical record (that is, it was not the company denying - they never even saw a request - it was the doctors on their own). Now, the 3rd doctor is going to charge $750,000 for a service other equally qualified surgeons would do for $100,000. The company talks to the parents to expain the contra-indications. The parents (well, really the mother) is adamant about having the surgery even though the risks ranging from paralysis (somewhat likely) to death (not too remotely impossible) only have a 10% chance of mitigating any of the symptoms (and not curing anything). Now, I can certainly understand the mother being in this state. But, read that again. It's an ultra sad story. So, insurance company agrees to go ahead with surgery, but wants the parents and doctor to take full responsibility for outcomes (i.e. sign affidavits absolving company of possible outcomes) and do it for the "in network" price.
The parents are unwilling to sign and the doctor is unwilling to sign or do it for that price. During all this, the company offers to pay for a 2nd opinion at the doctor of the parents' choosing (Well, really this is the 4th opinion and 4th doctor of their choosing if you've been following). Complete refusal.
Who is acting in the patient's (the little girl's) best interest here? And if this were taking place in Canada, would any of this even be considered since the girl's projected life span is another 5 years if she's lucky? It is an extremely heart wrenching story. On top of which, the mother tells the nurse handling the case that she hopes she and her children die. The nurse is beside herself b/c she's trying to do right by the patient and this is what she gets. (and this nurse is the nicest person you'd ever hope to meet - I do not understand the parent going there).
Those are what the debate should be about.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Here's the (not so) funny part of this story - you blame the insurance company for this.
Oh... no, I don't.
I blame the entire system that's meant to make money and not make people well. This isn't an insurance company's fault.
And legally, they are required to provide treatment regardless of insurance. You should have reported them if you believe they provided sub-par service.
They did "treat" him. They gave him a few x-rays, some drugs and a sling.
Fair point on the first one. I think we all agree the system needs to be fixed. I just don't think single payer, Feds is the best option.
You are right about the "treat," but it sounds like malpractice. That is punishable.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Coming from Canada.. I know that it just doesn't happen like that up there. Their system isn't built around wringing as much money from people as they can.
You are right about that, as well. They can't - Government fixes prices. And that's why I think the providers are misguided in pushing for that. They won't like that very much.
BUT, has the Government managed anything effeciently? So, what makes us think these fixed prices would be the best you could get? They could have a draconian system that basically scares any semi-intelligent person away from med school. But, that's no good either. Who CAN'T envision when the Gov't will overpay for everything and drive insurance rates (taxes) through the roof?
And in Canada, some of the best doctors simply opt out and create a premium driven private plan for rich folks.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Coming from Canada.. I know that it just doesn't happen like that up there. Their system isn't built around wringing as much money from people as they can.
You are right about that, as well. They can't - Government fixes prices. And that's why I think the providers are misguided in pushing for that. They won't like that very much.
BUT, has the Government managed anything effeciently? So, what makes us think these fixed prices would be the best you could get? They could have a draconian system that basically scares any semi-intelligent person away from med school. But, that's no good either. Who CAN'T envision when the Gov't will overpay for everything and drive insurance rates (taxes) through the roof?
And in Canada, some of the best doctors simply opt out and create a premium driven private plan for rich folks.
Honestly, in Canada, any time a relative has needed urgent care (heart attack/bypass, cancer treatment, etc..) they have been treated exceptionally quickly.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Honestly, in Canada, any time a relative has needed urgent care (heart attack/bypass, cancer treatment, etc..) they have been treated exceptionally quickly.
US, too. I'm sure both countries can produce (unfortunate) horror stories.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
i understand what you are saying but like i said before. who should have the power to determine that?
also sometimes what is considered unnecessary test are necessary. i remember back in the 80's and early 90's many women where not being test for HIV cause most people believed that it was just a gay man issues. i think we all know now that this is not correct.[/quote]
Doctors should determine what is necessary and what is not. Who wouldn't think that?
And who thinks insurance companies don't have DOCTORS doing that? That's the misinformed part. The media here has folks believing CFO's are. That is 100% incorrect. The insurance companies are regulated and must file all medical protocols with CMS (For Medicare) or the State (For Medicaid and Commercial/Individual). There are also stringent appeal rights, third party reviews, etc.
If they made decisions not based on medical criteria, they would be put out of business.
Are they perfect - no. But, anyone who thinks their pesonal doctor is - well - there's a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale.
As for the HIV testing - that was not insurance protocol - that was common misconception. It happens all the time in life. And that "conventional wisdom" changed for the better.[/quote]
i have no doubt that insurance companies have doctors. and since you work in insurance, i just have a question for you. if a doctor is getting paid from the insurance company don't you think that maybe they might side more with the people who pay them? i don't know the answer to that and hope you can answer that. for me there seems to be a conflict of interest there.
Coming from Canada.. I know that it just doesn't happen like that up there. Their system isn't built around wringing as much money from people as they can.
You are right about that, as well. They can't - Government fixes prices. And that's why I think the providers are misguided in pushing for that. They won't like that very much.
BUT, has the Government managed anything effeciently? So, what makes us think these fixed prices would be the best you could get? They could have a draconian system that basically scares any semi-intelligent person away from med school. But, that's no good either. Who CAN'T envision when the Gov't will overpay for everything and drive insurance rates (taxes) through the roof?
And in Canada, some of the best doctors simply opt out and create a premium driven private plan for rich folks.
your also correct here. the government here in Canada does set the prices on what a doctor can charge for things. but to be honest, i know many doctors and they are not just scrapping by.
Comments
no we are not fp or im. we are orthopedic mds. we see all ages, peds to elderly. i think in the five years i have been there we have seen a 1 year old all the way to a 98 year old. and we are the only one in a 30 mile radius that takes medicaid. not because they definitely pay, but because it is the right thing to do, because somebody has to see those people. we are in a group of 30 docs and the im guys are always complaining in meetings that they are not getting paid by the private insurances. hell we are specialists and we get pennies on the dollar for some services. fracture care for one. fracture care is an umbrella code that includes all of your visits, copays, x rays, casting, splinting for 3 months. a fracture code bills insurance about $900. we are lucky to see 60% of that from insurance and the patient ends up owing a lot of money.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
re. the employer base HMO coverage, that was irrelevant, my wife was (at that time) a private contractor/1099 as are millions of other americans in the same boat. they gotta shop for a privately insured plan. sure there are catastrophic plans (which she did for 1 year), boy those are really fkd up.
MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006
Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006
New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010
Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011
Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012
EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012
Dallas-November 2013
OKC-November 2013
ACL 2-October 2014
Fenway Night 1, August 2016
Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018
Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023
Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023
Austin, Night 1 September 2023
Austin, Night 2 September 2023
Why can't we pay for necessary ones and NOT unnecessary ones?
And some unnecessary ones are detriments to your health.
Because we don't live in a perfect world. Who decides who is necessary and what is not? At the moment, it's the health insurance companies that won't pay for tests until they know that the patient is terminal. So they don't have to pay for treatment. They wait until you're sick enough that you won't get better... Is that the kind of system you really want?
You are misinformed.
The focus is on the individual mandate because the Federal government doesn't have the authority to mandate citizens to purchase a product. Everything else you typed is irrelevant if the bill itself isn't constitutional. That is why the focus IS on the mandate.
Well no. I'm not. And the sad thing is that the health insurance companies have convinced you otherwise. They pour millions into the campaigns of politicians who'll say things like "death panels" and "pull the plug on gramma" and the sheep all follow.
Ok I'll give you this... If a person has great coverage, they often DO get tests they don't need because e doctors know the insurance will pay for it.
But that's a lot less common than you're lead to believe. What's more common is people not getting tests until it's too late. My grandfather died because although his doctor knew he had cancer, he couldn't get the proper tests approved until it was way too late to do anything about it.
sorry went away for the weekend and didn't have internet there. Don't get me wrong, i love the Canadian health care system even with it faults. but i do have to say that depending on where you are in Canada you might wait 3 hours or more in the emergency room. they base entry on how important your issue is.
i understand what you are saying but like i said before. who should have the power to determine that?
also sometimes what is considered unnecessary test are necessary. i remember back in the 80's and early 90's many women where not being test for HIV cause most people believed that it was just a gay man issues. i think we all know now that this is not correct.
True.
But one of the performers I work with had a severely broken collarbone AND not only waited the 3 hours to be seen, once they found he didn't have insurance, they gave him a few x rays, a bottle of pain killers and a cloth sling, sent him home without the surgery he needed and sent him a bill for $30,000.
He's quite deformed because of how bad the bones healed.
That never would have happened in Canada.
Yes, in some places you have to wait a long time for care in Canada butbat least you get it.
holy fuck! i should send this post to many people in Canada who complain about our health care system. I also broke a collarbone and was in a lot of pain. it was a Saturday night and really busy in the emergency room. i think i waited i think about 10 minutes but i think it was also because i was a falling down alot due to what i found out was a concussion.
Doctors should determine what is necessary and what is not. Who wouldn't think that?
And who thinks insurance companies don't have DOCTORS doing that? That's the misinformed part. The media here has folks believing CFO's are. That is 100% incorrect. The insurance companies are regulated and must file all medical protocols with CMS (For Medicare) or the State (For Medicaid and Commercial/Individual). There are also stringent appeal rights, third party reviews, etc.
If they made decisions not based on medical criteria, they would be put out of business.
Are they perfect - no. But, anyone who thinks their pesonal doctor is - well - there's a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale.
As for the HIV testing - that was not insurance protocol - that was common misconception. It happens all the time in life. And that "conventional wisdom" changed for the better.
Wow.
And you called ME "misinformed."
Although yes... I suppose a few doctors rubber stamp the paperwork, the jobs of those people are "find evidence of pre-existing conditions so we can cancel their claims now that they're sick."
Here's the (not so) funny part of this story - you blame the insurance company for this. When, in fact it was the facility that acted poorly. You are right about waiting times in ER's. It is abhorrent at some places. And legally, they are required to provide treatment regardless of insurance. You should have reported them if you believe they provided sub-par service. They could lose their license for that.
But, look at the bill he got - $30,000! Do you think the service he got (let alone the service he should have gotten) was worth $30,000? I certainly hope he didn't pay that. What you describe is less than $1,000.
Now, let's say we have this perfect world Universal Coverage you seek - would you like your tax dollars to go up b/c the Feds are paying $30,000 for a $750 service? And would your friend have had a problem not being covered by insurance if they billed him appropriately rather than artificially inflating the bill so they could negotiate based on a % discount off billed rather than based on the actual value of the service?
What other industry do we allow producers/providers to do such a thing?
Have you gotten a clue yet that I work at one of these "evil" companies? And, I am not a doctor. And, I know who makes the decisions here and how they make them. I also know the inner workings of several other large insurers, how they work and the legal requirements we are all under.
So, yes, I can confidently say you are misinformed.
Ah yeah... "legal requirements."
That's just a way of saying "let's see how we can get this around the laws."
If you work for one of the companies, you know about how many people have paid for years and then had their coverage cancelled once they needed because someone - doctor or otherwise - was able to find a legal loophole and a "pre-existing condition."
Oh... no, I don't.
I blame the entire system that's meant to make money and not make people well. This isn't an insurance company's fault.
They did "treat" him. They gave him a few x-rays, some drugs and a sling.
Agreed. No, of course he didn't pay it. He's 21 with a part time job and no insurance. He makes 30K in about 2 years.
Coming from Canada.. I know that it just doesn't happen like that up there. Their system isn't built around wringing as much money from people as they can.
1. Middle aged woman has diabetes, CHF and had spinal fusion surgery. Keeps breaking bones in falls in their house. PCP doesn't have a clue what to do. Specialists have no ideas. Nurse from insurance company visits house - sees the patient has high steps in and out of the house b/c it's an older house and not under current code. HEALTH insurance company hires and pays someone to design and build an elaborate ramp (it actually had to loop around once b/c the stairs were so steep), and now the woman can get in and out of her house without any problem. BTW, elaborate privately designed ramps are not covered by insurance coverage. Patient's bill - $0. According to the woman - life changing. Would Canada's system even consider this (let alone pay for it)?
2. Young girl has a serious illness from birth. 2 Nuerosurgeons independently determine that a particular surgery is not recommended b/c the risks far outweigh the remotely possible reward (which would be temporary anyway). 3rd surgeon determines it's necessary, but in submitting the paperwork submits literature that STONGLY recommends that it is contra-indicated (As in not only is it unnecessary, but is detrimental). Now, the company only finds out about the first 2 doctor's findings b/c the 3rd surgeon submitted it with the medical record (that is, it was not the company denying - they never even saw a request - it was the doctors on their own). Now, the 3rd doctor is going to charge $750,000 for a service other equally qualified surgeons would do for $100,000. The company talks to the parents to expain the contra-indications. The parents (well, really the mother) is adamant about having the surgery even though the risks ranging from paralysis (somewhat likely) to death (not too remotely impossible) only have a 10% chance of mitigating any of the symptoms (and not curing anything). Now, I can certainly understand the mother being in this state. But, read that again. It's an ultra sad story. So, insurance company agrees to go ahead with surgery, but wants the parents and doctor to take full responsibility for outcomes (i.e. sign affidavits absolving company of possible outcomes) and do it for the "in network" price.
The parents are unwilling to sign and the doctor is unwilling to sign or do it for that price. During all this, the company offers to pay for a 2nd opinion at the doctor of the parents' choosing (Well, really this is the 4th opinion and 4th doctor of their choosing if you've been following). Complete refusal.
Who is acting in the patient's (the little girl's) best interest here? And if this were taking place in Canada, would any of this even be considered since the girl's projected life span is another 5 years if she's lucky? It is an extremely heart wrenching story. On top of which, the mother tells the nurse handling the case that she hopes she and her children die. The nurse is beside herself b/c she's trying to do right by the patient and this is what she gets. (and this nurse is the nicest person you'd ever hope to meet - I do not understand the parent going there).
Those are what the debate should be about.
They did "treat" him. They gave him a few x-rays, some drugs and a sling.
Well it would be if he wasn't a 21 year-old with no money for a lawyer going up against a huge hospital with a wing full of lawyers.
As far as your examples above.. yes, the Canadian system would handle those the same way.
You are right about that, as well. They can't - Government fixes prices. And that's why I think the providers are misguided in pushing for that. They won't like that very much.
BUT, has the Government managed anything effeciently? So, what makes us think these fixed prices would be the best you could get? They could have a draconian system that basically scares any semi-intelligent person away from med school. But, that's no good either. Who CAN'T envision when the Gov't will overpay for everything and drive insurance rates (taxes) through the roof?
And in Canada, some of the best doctors simply opt out and create a premium driven private plan for rich folks.
Right - I wasn't suggesting you sue them necessarily. Report it to the State. The Facility has to respond to EVERY report.
And if you did sue - you wouldn't be fighing the hospital - you'd be fighting the malpractice insurer.
In Canada.. I think that's illegal.
That said... fine. let the ultra rich get premium service. Just as long as everyone else has at least basic care.
US, too. I'm sure both countries can produce (unfortunate) horror stories.
i understand what you are saying but like i said before. who should have the power to determine that?
also sometimes what is considered unnecessary test are necessary. i remember back in the 80's and early 90's many women where not being test for HIV cause most people believed that it was just a gay man issues. i think we all know now that this is not correct.[/quote]
Doctors should determine what is necessary and what is not. Who wouldn't think that?
And who thinks insurance companies don't have DOCTORS doing that? That's the misinformed part. The media here has folks believing CFO's are. That is 100% incorrect. The insurance companies are regulated and must file all medical protocols with CMS (For Medicare) or the State (For Medicaid and Commercial/Individual). There are also stringent appeal rights, third party reviews, etc.
If they made decisions not based on medical criteria, they would be put out of business.
Are they perfect - no. But, anyone who thinks their pesonal doctor is - well - there's a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale.
As for the HIV testing - that was not insurance protocol - that was common misconception. It happens all the time in life. And that "conventional wisdom" changed for the better.[/quote]
i have no doubt that insurance companies have doctors. and since you work in insurance, i just have a question for you. if a doctor is getting paid from the insurance company don't you think that maybe they might side more with the people who pay them? i don't know the answer to that and hope you can answer that. for me there seems to be a conflict of interest there.
your also correct here. the government here in Canada does set the prices on what a doctor can charge for things. but to be honest, i know many doctors and they are not just scrapping by.