←back to thread

167 points ceejayoz | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.653s | source
Show context
ceejayoz ◴[] No.43664706[source]
Long read; these bits were notable to me:

> But the insurer’s defense went even further, to the very meaning of “prior authorization,” which it had granted women like Arch to pursue surgery. The authorization, they said in court, recognized that a procedure was medically necessary, but it also contained a clause that it was “not a guarantee of payment.” Blue Cross was not obliged to pay the center anything, top executives testified. “Let me be clear: The authorization never says we’re going to pay you,” said Steven Udvarhelyi, who was the CEO for the insurer from 2016 to 2024, in a deposition. “That’s why there’s a disclaimer.

> At the trial, Blue Cross revealed that it had never considered any of the appeals — nor had it ever told the center that they were pointless. “An appeal is not available to review an underpayment,” acknowledged Paula Shepherd, a Blue Cross executive vice president. The insurer simply issued an edict — the payment was correct.

> On several occasions, though, Blue Cross executives had signed special one-time deals with the center, known as single case agreements, to pay for their wives’ cancer treatment.

replies(5): >>43665139 #>>43665359 #>>43665603 #>>43665652 #>>43665927 #
DannyBee ◴[] No.43665359[source]
First off, you won't convince me these folks don't belong in jail. I just dont' think anything less than serious criminal penalties is going to get us anywhere anymore.

But at the same time, i guess i'll be contrarian and say the other notable bit to me is that the person wants the absolute best doctors working on her, at the absolute best place possible because they pioneered the technique. I get why. But it's not necessarily reasonable. Obviously, if her cases needs that, she should get it. But it's really unclear from the article - is her case one that any competent surgeon could do, or only these surgeons can do. It does say they pioneered one technique, but that doesn't mean they are the only ones who do it or are good at it. She just says "i want the people who teach other people working on me", which certainly resonates with lots of people (i'm sure that's why it's there), but also, probably too high of a standard?

In the end - the absolute best of everything is expensive. Very expensive. I doubt a system can afford to have that happen for everyone, even if the insurers were not evil fraudsters. So even if we ever fix the insurer side, I think we will also have to fix the patient expectation side around standards of care.

replies(4): >>43665399 #>>43665504 #>>43665721 #>>43666081 #
1. ceejayoz ◴[] No.43665399[source]
> First off, you won't convince me these folks don't belong in jail. I just dont' think anything less than serious criminal penalties is going to get us anywhere anymore.

Agreed.

Company wise, I’d like to see these things handled like the FDIC handles a bank failure. The Feds come in, wipe out upper management, and have another org take over as caretaker.

Otherwise these fines just get paid out of increased premiums. Which probably makes the folks responsible giggle as they immediately go and do the same thing again.

replies(2): >>43669642 #>>43670535 #
2. spicymaki ◴[] No.43669642[source]
I would have agreed with the caretakers proposal a year ago. However you can see how it could be abused. Even jail as a remedy is precarious these days.
3. _DeadFred_ ◴[] No.43670535[source]
Business penalties shouldn't be fines but partial government ownership. This

1. hits the management/owners but in a way in keeping with the benefits/protections that corporation provide (government isn't directly coming after owners/management) so we keep a 'do business' friendly regulatory environment. Owners are simply diluted with less ownership and management now have the government operating from within giving the government more visibility.

2. Over time, companies that continue to break the law become government owned. Additional fine percentages should be on a increasing scale.

There needs to be rules about ownership and a time period they are held so the government doesn't just seize business but the current corporate fine structure simply doesn't work.

replies(1): >>43675299 #
4. systemswizard ◴[] No.43675299[source]
Personally I’d rather they dictate leadership must change, as well as board members. If the ceo is part of the board remove em they are clearly driving the problem as a conflict of interest.