the madness that is US “healthcare” never ceases to amaze me.
Know what happens when a doctor recommends me a treatment? I get that treatment.
I don’t have to hope an insurance company will “approve” of me getting that treatment. I don’t have to worry about paying for it.
Anyone still defending this system needs psychological help. Which would be denied by the insurance company. And cost 10000s out of pocket
It gets better. So many times Dr's will have to start with treatments they know won't work because otherwise insurance will just decline it all together.
The funny part is that this the ends up costing the insurance companies more. Nose removed, face spited.
It may cost more for that individual, which is likely additive. What's multiplicative is the number of people who don't or can't jump through the hoops and just move on. Having a tough time getting out of a subscription service? Insurance basically did it first.
Agreed, they play the numbers game but at the cost of human suffering. All the cases where it costs them more though is just illustrative of the stupidity of it and helps show that there is room for legislation to curb this.
Anyone still defending this system needs psychological help. Which would be denied by the insurance company. And cost 10000s out of pocket
Approximately half the country supports it because it hurts people they don't like, and they're about to elect a literal dictator. Please send help
LPT: If your doctor firmly believes that you require X treatment/medication/etc. Have them use the specific term "medically necessary". If your insurer kicks it back with that phrasing attached, contact them. Ask for the medical license number of the doctor who indicated that it was not medically necessary. Push for this information (they won't have it) and continue the line of "Someone on your end is making a medical decision against my doctors orders. I require their credentials so I can confirm they are a) qualified to make medical decisions, and b) have a higher education that my doctor possesses."
I'll be interested if someone actually tried this
I speak from experience. Blue Cross has not argued or denied any of our doctors' requests since the second time I used that method.
Had a specialist tell my wife she needed a shoulder replacement. Insurance wanted her to do physical therapy. I was livid. "I want the license number of the doctor on your end who is deciding that physical therapy is going to some how magically fix torn rotator cuff tendons. Telling our medical specialist that physical therapy is required is a medical decision that contradicts their diagnosis that it needs replaced. If we follow your recommendation and it fails, I need the name and license number of who to go after for making that decision. Shielding this professional, and I use that term loosely, indicates that you're willing to assume all the liability when "physical therapy" causes more pain and damage."
This reads like a summary of a chapter in a dystopian novel
It reads like sovereign citizen advice.
Ffs, is this truly where we are at? Fuck me...
Why are we letting the insurance companies make decisions like doctors in the first place again again?
Because doctors have a financial incentive to order and perform/give expensive procedures and drugs that may not necessarily be medically necessary.
This is obviously a somewhat different situation, but I'd remind you that lots of doctors made a lot of money by unnecessarily prescribing Oxycontin that the spiraled into the opioid crisis.
It's not unreasonable for there to be some kind of check, though to be clear, I'm not saying the current system is good. But, insurance just automatically paying for anything a doctor orders is open for abuse, and that needs to be addressed one way or another.
This is obviously a somewhat different situation, but I’d remind you that lots of doctors made a lot of money by unnecessarily prescribing Oxycontin that the spiraled into the opioid crisis.
Some doctors made a lot of money. Most believed what they were told and prescribed medication they thought would help their patients.
Well said. I have a nerve disorder which is controlled by medication, but it took a long time to get there and, for a while, he tried me on different opioids. I could easily have gotten seriously addicted (I did go through withdrawal symptoms after I stopped, but I had no problem stopping), but he was doing whatever he could to try and help me with my pain. He wasn't trying to make money, he was trying to make me feel better. And it took about three years, but he finally did.
Marketing by opiate manufactureres cooked up a small study that said certain opiates had slow release versions that were less addictive and doctors bought in for a while.
I would step back a little though and say the reason people actually need so many opiates in america ties into larger problems that cause the US to have far more injuries than other countries:
Over reliance on car infrastructure and commuting because improper zoning and lack of public transit
Poor labor protections and safety in workplaces
Gun fucking
I'd remind you that lots of doctors made a lot of money by unnecessarily prescribing Oxycontin that the spiraled into the opioid crisis.
Wait, so where were these insurance companies then and why weren't they acting as "checks" on these doctors? It couldn't have just been a minor oversight by the insurance companies either, considering it did spiral into a nationwide crisis.
There is nothing stopping it from being a retroactive investigation. Doctor prescribes it and then has to send evidence to the Insurance Company who can review it. If there's a pattern of Bad behavior with one doctor they can press charges or something like that. But until then you're holding up treatment on the suspicion of the possibility.
Thats what Medicare does. People around the hospital are afraid to fuck anything up because they will go back and take all of their money back.
That’s a bullshit excuse (to be blunt). What you’re suggesting is that it’s the insurance companies job to police doctors who are doing harm to their patients. There is already a body that does this (or is supposed to): the medical board. If the insurance company feels that a doctor is abusing their privileges, then it needs to be taken up with the appropriate authorities. It does not mean causing further harm to the patient by denying possibly critical services.
We don't have anyone to make better medical decisions than doctors. I certainly don't want insurance company bureaucrats substituting their medical judgment for my doctor's, even if my doctor sucks.
This is a good step in the right direction, but I'd like to see it applied to commercial plans as well. Prior authorization is everything they're saying it is and worse.
It’s the difference between single-payer systems run by the government and private, for-profit commercial plans. I’m happy to see this carried out on an executive level since an actual law regulating private insurance would be a shit storm in congress. Remove the profit motive from insurers and the shift quickly moves towards real-world evidence and health outcomes rather than profit margins.
Were all fighting over the most miniscule things in the grand scheme. We should all be demanding the most effective and efficient single payer program the world has ever seen.
You're right, we should be cutting out the bloated middleman entirely.
It's true, but perfection is still the enemy of progress.
So I see you had diabetes last year. Was the insulin we gave you last year enough to cure it, or do still have it? Either way, we need to make sure you aren't selling it to bodybuilders, so go see a doctor to confirm it hasn't been cured.
You joke, but I'm literally fighting this fight right now.
Prescription: Your doctor thinks you need a medication
Prior Authorization: Your insurance doesn't want pay for the medication and wants your doctor to affirm that he wrote a prescription
Let’s not forget why Prior Authorization exists - shitty doctors who get kickbacks from labs or imaging facilities (or who own them) sending patients there unnecessarily in order to embezzle unecessary payments from Medicare and Medicaid (or even commercial) plans, draining risk pools for their own gain.
There are no good guys in America.
That is already illegal. Prior auth was not a necessary intervention for this problem.
So instead we have giant, mega corp insurance companie "non-profits" designing "AI" systems that auto deny 90% of all medical treatments and fight tooth and nail against the other 10%. All so they can drain money from patients and the goverment, injurying or directly killing milllions of americans every year for their own gain.
Neat fix.
Whats funny is you cite Medicare fraud. Medicare has a very short list of things they require preauths for. They are the easiest to work with. They do audits and if they spot any issues will take back all of the money. People are genuinely scared of that happening as it can be a lot at once if we did something wrong for a while.
How about a similar rule that puts the provider on the hook for getting authorization for what they do?
Like I know the system is fucked, but I don't want my doctor having me go somewhere to find out I get a $500 bill. Make them get authorization and if it fails tell me the cost before the appointment gets made.
If I have to spit in a tube again to get a $500 bill, I'll call and threaten Natera again till they drop the bill. Bastards.
That would slow medical care down dramatically.
But why? This should be automated based on my coverage plan.
Because it's not an automated process to get a procedure authorized.
Make it automated.
They already do for big services. Thats why its called a preauthorization. It just doesn't work well in emergencies and they dont do it for shit like routine blood draws. Ive had them tell me I could get a CT now and hope they approve it or take my chances. There is still incentive for the provider to fight the battle because patients getting big bills often don't pay them at all (it helps if you tell them though, they are busy and not necessarily keyed into every patients bill status).
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.