"Slow Pay, Low Pay or No Pay": Blue Cross Approved Surgeries Then Refused to Pay

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.

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.

The point of insurance is that it should not matter. Some providers may charge more, some less, insurance should care about the average. In other countries you may be treated by great doctors and still be covered by statutory insurance.

Patient primary expectation is always to have a doctor they can trust. That can be fixed only when all doctors get the decent money and comfortable work environment and that means several things: the less middlemen the better, the cost of living including housing should be affordable and put them in middle class, the treatment standards should give them enough time and flexibility, etc.

Didn’t, in this case, the insurer care precisely about the average—setting reimbursement at the average rate for people receiving masectomy care in the state?

Doesn’t it say that most people post-masectomy get “a relatively straightforward surgical procedure using implants filled with silicon or another gel,” which, judging by how unusual the article makes out this surgical center to be, seems to have medically reasonable outcomes?

One big argument missing here is why the “natural reconstruction” option is different from the normal option, aside from the patient who explained that “the idea appealed” because she “felt like [she] was taking something foreign out of my body, cancer, and [she] did not want to put something foreign back in.”

So it seems like, faced with this medical need, some people want a procedure that involves “five operations” in a setting “combining the luxury feel of an upscale plastic surgery practice with the mission-driven zeal of a medical clinic,” where instead of the implants the proprietors do “lengthy and complex operations [that] can last up to 12 hours with big medical teams involved.”

It’s true that the latter probably costs more than the average—and it’s more than reasonable that, when it comes to their own care, anybody might prefer the luxury (or just humane) setting and the dozens of hours of painstaking hand-reconstruction.

It’s also obvious (and settled in court) that the insurer got up to some shady business in this particular case (not least the “for me but not for thee” stuff).

In the general case, though, I have a hard time making the case that it’s fair for a patient’s preference alone to be enough to justify bumping the cost by an order of magnitude or two—especially since insurance spreads those costs out among all the other people paying for insurance, not the dastardly execs directly.

If you can afford luxury then pay extra for luxury, fine. But the insurance feels to me like it’s there to meet the basic medical part of the requirements.

The fancy clinic was good enough for them to approve it for their own wives, it seems.