Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Aetna = Death panels [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
RZ wrote:
davec wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/11/health/aetna-california-investigation/index.html

So who should make healthcare decisions? A nameless faceless insurance company bureaucraft or a nameless faceless government bureaucrat?

Either way we are fucked.

Simple question. What is the solution?


The doctor treating the patient. How did we end up where a fucking insurance company gets to dictate how a patient is treated? It's absolutely disgusting that this type of thing has been allowed to happen.


Well, the insurance company is not dictating how a patient is treated; rather, whether the insurance company will pay for that treatment. Now, yes, I realize in practice that is a distinction without a difference. But, perhaps it points more to the issue of how health care is billed more than anything else.

That's what I wrote (with more details) above. And this is actually my field. A lot of comments in this thread are based on personal experience and just aren't correct.
Quote Reply
Re: Aetna = Death panels [Spiridon Louis] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Spiridon Louis wrote:
EndlessH2O wrote:
Would I/my family be better off if you didn’t accept insurance but we could bargain for a cash discount?

One of our problems is that insurance isn’t “insurance” anymore. It’s a healthcare payment system. It’s like if your car insurance covered your oil changes. If insurance covered just “big stuff” and you paid for routine stuff out of your own pocket, yes, you’d be better off.

The other big difference is that auto insurance is bounded by scrap cost of autos. I think this is one of our big questions- what is the scrap cost of a human?
Quote Reply
Re: Aetna = Death panels [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ThisIsIt wrote:
RZ wrote:
davec wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/11/health/aetna-california-investigation/index.html

So who should make healthcare decisions? A nameless faceless insurance company bureaucraft or a nameless faceless government bureaucrat?

Either way we are fucked.

Simple question. What is the solution?


The doctor treating the patient. How did we end up where a fucking insurance company gets to dictate how a patient is treated?


When healthcare became expensive and the insurance companies had to figure out how to keep making money.

We got here because expansion of insurance, beyond what insurance usually means, allows doctors and hospitals to make more money and a whole sector of insurance companies to make more money, while not really providing any better care.

We could have health care driven more by market forces, where doctors and hospitals could only charge what the patient base could afford, and insurance could be used for unforeseen, unusually expensive emergencies, like insurance operates for homes, cars, etc.

Instead, we've allowed the insurance industry to completely entrench itself in the healthcare system, so that everything is paid for through insurance, which allows prices to skyrocket, because they're no longer constrained by any normal market forces.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Aetna = Death panels [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
We got here because expansion of insurance, beyond what insurance usually means, allows doctors and hospitals to make more money and a whole sector of insurance companies to make more money, while not really providing any better care.

On the whole, has it really turned out that 'free' preventative care has led to a decrease in more major health issues later?
Quote Reply
Re: Aetna = Death panels [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Moonrocket wrote:
Spiridon Louis wrote:
EndlessH2O wrote:
Would I/my family be better off if you didn’t accept insurance but we could bargain for a cash discount?


One of our problems is that insurance isn’t “insurance” anymore. It’s a healthcare payment system. It’s like if your car insurance covered your oil changes. If insurance covered just “big stuff” and you paid for routine stuff out of your own pocket, yes, you’d be better off.


The other big difference is that auto insurance is bounded by scrap cost of autos. I think this is one of our big questions- what is the scrap cost of a human?

Depends on what that human is willing to pay. As an example, last week I had to switch medications for my rare kidney disease - I was going to be charged $1100+ then $395 every refill once the deductible was met. This was for powder Potassium Chloride. Not wanting to pay that, I called my physician and asked to be switched to the pill form, where I now pay a more acceptable $49 per refill (although I think that to be too high). While the first set of figures would be a windfall for a pharmacy, they are not so great for the person on the other side of the counter. This scenario is why I am not for a "single payer", because if it was that, 1. who knows what the price would have been and what I would have paid and 2. others should not have to be baring my medical costs. I don't want medicine as whole to be out of sight and out of mind; I want to know what costs are and have some control over what I pay. I see way too many people obsess more over the cost of an iPhone or car than they do over their healthcare.
Quote Reply
Re: Aetna = Death panels [Spiridon Louis] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Spiridon Louis wrote:
I’m a doctor. l HATE dealing with insurance companies.

That said, “death panels” are a necessity if we want to keep costs down. Doctors will not be responsible stewards of health care resources. Neither will patients. They will do everything and anything more often than not. So whether it’s a private company or the government, someone will throttle the money being spent.

I’ll add, importantly, these aren’t decisions about healthCARE. This is a decisison about healthcare PAYMENT. Aetna cannot stop the treatment, only deny coverage of it. Due to cost, that’s often the same thing. In this specific case all the insurance company was asking was for the patient to update blood work he hadn’t had in 3 years before approving a $20k treatment. That seems reasonable. The patient didn’t comply initially. Once he did he got his treatment paid for. Again, reasonable.

Lastly, the answer in an ideal world, is either a centralized payer who covers basic stuff and a secondary insurance market for stuff not covered that way or a total free market where insurance companies and doctors compete for business by offering the best coverage and providing the best service at the lowest cost. Currently we have neither of those.

I'm in healthcare finance. I agree with most of it except perhaps the last bit about "total free market". That bit would not work because insurance, especially the health-kind, is a staggeringly asymmetric contract. The customer generally has no clue how to evaluate his or her own risk, let alone price it. In addition, the insurance companies do not make more money by winning customers after winning the competition for their business (in that total free market). They stand to make the most money by selling only profitable coverage. The free market would simply price unprofitable customers out. That's basically what we had pre-ACA. Sick people would be dropped, denied re-entry, indirectly forced into bankruptcy/destitution and onto Medicaid. Swell setup - private for profit insurance backstopped by the taxpayer. FREEDOM!
Quote Reply

Prev Next