Why? “Line must go up”
If that were the case, they'd have off'd the CEO themselves. That's multi-millions that could go back to other higher-ups. Then we have a Highlander situation.
The CEO serves a very important role in that they get all the fallout for what the board probably wants, and then if there's enough bad publicity, they can fire the CEO and pretend that the CEO acted entirely out of their own volition.
I mean that's not to say they're not greedy bloodsuckers, but they're greedy bloodsuckers that the board needs. Because the board are even bigger greedy bloodsuckers and want to stay out of the news.
One less golden parachute. More for the rest.
Because doing otherwise wouldn't maximize profits. There's no actual competition in the market for consumers to choose. Nearly all Americans get insurance through their work, and have absolutely no say in what companies those options are from, and those options might only change at the end of the year if the company changes their insurance partner (which I'm sure takes months to negotiate). UHC has no reason to change unless they are forced to. Customer Satisfaction in the industry is abysmal because there's no incentive for the companies to actually be good.
They had their underwriters run the numbers and they determined it's more profitable to continue business as usual and just invest in private security for executives.
It is more profitable that the beatings continue.
In Corey Doctorow's short story (Radicalized, in the collection Radicalized) the health fund attackers typically used explosives against the entire board and their support staff
I wonder if that would be more effective
I don't think you can pivot a 465 billion dollar company. Especially one where being unethical is a profit making feature.
They won't fix themselves, hell why even reign it in if the system rewards bad behavior?
The simplest explanation is they literally can't change, they've built this level of callousness into their DNA. It's useful confirmation that for-profit health insurance is beyond saving.
CEO's come and go and one just went
The ingredients you got bake the cake you get
So, if you get sick, cross your fingers for luck
'Cause old Richard T. Burke ain't givin' a fuck
- Jesse Wells, United Health
What incentivize do they have? The vast majority of their customers have no choice but to be their customers. They just need to keep the companies that companies contract with to set up benefits happy. That's a very small pool and most aren't customers of theirs. And especially with the anti-regulation party coming into power, there's no reason to fear government intervention. But even before that, it wasnt really a threat.
My employer had to hire a lawyer to get their insurance company to cover us and stop denying claims. It's beyond fucked up out there.
They're not scared enough yet.
Well shoot, what can be done to fix this?
Your second word.
CEOs will be blown away by the answer.
Whatever idea we come up with is worth a shot
Bing, Bing, Wah-gunshots
Round two?
Wait! They got a new CEO?
GO! They got a new CEO!
Ai: "It is safe and profitable to deny this claim as she is unlikely to seek vengeance."
AI forgot all the people who will seek vengeance for her, however...
Always has been.
How Many Times Do We Have to Teach You This Lesson, Old Man?
Brian Thompson didn't learn shit he's dead. And I doubt that Stephen J. Hemsley, the Executive Chairman of UnitedHealth Group and Brian Thompson's co-defendent in an insider trading lawsuit, likely didn't learn squat either but is currently still alive.
They believe it was a one off lone wolf. Unless they see a pattern there is little to be learnt.
They could put out a story like this every minute of every day and never run out. Burn it all down indeed
PLAYER 2 START
Player 2 has been trapped by Bowser inside the Koopa Dungeons, it's Player 1's turn.
Ready, Player 1?
Proof that Luigi was right! 2025 is the year we the people start denying their existence. Medicare for all and the doctors that get paid the most do so by having healthy patients. No more pill popping to keep making these insurers rich!
Given who is about to be sworn into office, I'm not sure too much progress will happen, but people will certainly get an idea of how much they're getting fucked.
Maybe after the next election?
Stephen Helmsley:
He was managing partner and chief financial officer at Arthur Andersen.
Super shocking that he was doing insider trading at UHC. They hired a known crook and paid him tens of millions a year.
Hemsley: He is a member of the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America, the organization's governing body.
Tell me you didn’t go to law school without telling me you didn’t go to law school.
Edit - As American prisons are a form of institutional violence, your warning that posting Wikipedia links “could be in violation of Federal law” is in itself a call for violence against the original poster. You can self report to the gulags.
Funny way to spell murders
Question -:why is there no website that lists and compiles these issues?
Is it shutdown by their legal?
Maybe someone could start a database distributed as torrent. So many people can host it and spin up as needed?
I'm a us citizen, but naturalized. Meaning they can accuse me of terrorism and deport me, whereas for Americans born here - they can't really do that. Has to be someone born in us.
Doesn't matter if you were born here or not, you just need to look like you would fit white in with their idea of normal.
Whereas a born American can just be accused of terrorism and be thrown in jail for god knows how many years?
If you're not willing to be the change then it doesn't need changing.
I'll put the CEO in a coma.
And I'd vote you not guilty.
Funny. I'm pretty sure by that logic there are also infinite something else.
Jesus Christ its almost been a month it feels like three.
HIPAA can be violated without giving a name, if certain details are disclosed; eg the only 6 year old in the state with rickettsiapox who was admitted on December 21.
But no, this tweet did not violate HIPAA.
Right that’s why was careful to say ”identified” and not “named”. If you give someone enough information to infer with certainty a patient’s identity without express permission from that patient, you’re cooked.
You must wonder if the board has a death wish at this point, otherwise they must be confident their 24/7 security is up the task
I think they probably count on the Edward Snowden effect - i.e. people are massively outraged for a few weeks, then they lose interest, move on to the next hot topic and nothing changes.
I bet the new United Healthcare CEO (or whomever is in currently in charge) is le pooping their pants right about now.
who’m’st’ve’er’nt
Hey hey let's leave the Welsh out of it
M’who’m’st’ve’er’nt’lady?
united healthcare looked at bob kelso and was like this guy is the hero of the series.
Bob actually tried to milk the insurance companies for money, IIRC. He wasn't entirely a monster, but definitely had no chill.
Dr. Bob Kelso: What the hell people? I saw Maggie Kent in the park. Why didn't we treat her?
Nurse Carla Espinosa: She has no insurance.
Dr. Bob Kelso: Well, why didn't we do what we always do? Why didn't you fix it while I turned my back and pretend not to notice? You know the dance.
he definitely mellowed out as the series went on though in the first episode he did come up with
Dr. Dorian, do you not realize that you're nothing but a large pair of scrubs to me? For God's sake, the only reason I carry this chart around is so I can pretend to remember your damn names! Now look, if the patient has insurance, you treat them; if they don't, you show them the door.
Was Bob actually denying the claims, or just passing the buck to the lawyer character? Can't remember his name.
Edit: Ted! No wonder I didn't remember that. They barely ever actually said his name.
Bob wasn't denying anything.
He just wanted the people who were getting treatment to have insurance so the hospital can get paid.
In this context, I'm sure if someone was denied coverage, his attitude on it would be the same as his attitude on people who are not insured.
AFAIK he would have had no say on whether someone was denied coverage. He did however, have a say on whether they were denied care. His professional attitude about that was "show them the door" but that policy was rarely ever actually enforced, and the few times it was, he complained that everyone did what he was telling them to.
Deny, Delay, Defend.... may I add: Dispose?
It was delay, deny, depose iirc
"We have a fiduciary responsibility to kill these drags on our profits."
--UHC Executives, probably
Brb loading my gun
A medically unnecessary coma thank you very much 🤔
These guys have not learned their lesson
Always more castles
To the absolute shock of all the people praising Luigi as the ultimate solution: nothing has changed.
You can kill an infinite number of people across all of time, but it's not going to change the fact that profit exists to be made. The only solution is legislative. We have to vote DNC, like we did in 2010, but instead of stopping at 58 we need to get to 60. Only then will there be progressive reform with no compromise.
you've had 60. it doesn't matter. what you need is to vote local and in primaries. you can't keep letting the party establishment rot take hold and hope it will lead to change in the general elections.
you’ve had 60
When was that?
You're gross and you enable grosser people
At the risk of you all putting a literal hit out on me, I'm going to proclaim the hot take that this is not the best example of insurance company abuse. I am in complete agreement that insurance greed and frankly insurance company power over the entire US Healthcare system is way out of balance. I argue the walls need to come down and things need to be rebuilt in aore socialized model. But as far as refusing claims go, be it socialized or the insurance Co mess we have now, Healthcare resources are inevitably limited. Someone with a brain hemorrhage, in a coma, ventilated, in heart failure is going to be massively expensive to support and will have a low likelihood of functional outcome. Rather than denying dozens of chemotherapy meds, or MRIs for suspected brain lesions, I could see the ugly job of denying this claim as justifiable.
The reason for denial given was that the doctor didn’t prove the treatment was medically necessary, not that it costs too much.
That's nitpicking. Is it medically necessary to support someone in a coma that likely won't have a good outcome? It's always about the money with insurance. That has to be assumed.
It’s not nitpicking, it was the literal denial reason. You are explaining why you think it was okay for them to do, but that’s not the reason given for a denial. They need to be able to defend what their denial actually says, not what you think it means, in the event of a lawsuit or appeal.
“Medically necessary” has a legal meaning, and it’s not dependent on whether you consider them a ‘useless eater.’
Medically unnecessary = we don't support the decision making and don't want to pay for it. It's the only language they will ever use. This is just the wording insurance companies use to deny claims.
Medically necessarily to have a chance to live, YES. You are confusing medically necessary with profitable, which is the whole point behind the outrage and the reason why the insurance "industry" is monstrous and dispicable.
I get what you're saying. Every denial reason is just a code for this is too expensive. The reason itself might be grounds to argue, but they are just going to try to deny it again with a different reason code.
To your original point, I agree that we should ask ourselves if it's worth hundreds of thousands of dollars just to keep a vegetable breathing for a few more days. Frankly if I were in that shape, I know death would be a kindness.
But I will say it seems immoral to leave the decision in the hands of the profit-makers.
I agree with the insurance company too and most doctors would. I'm not sure who this doctor is but most people in healthcare industry that actually work ICU will agree. I also challenge commenters here to speak to your (hospital) healthcare friends about it too, especially if they work ICU.
ICU beds are very limited and honestly not designed to house pts who are intubated or comatose indefinitely. They are designed to be short term with active treatment. Otherwise, if they need to live somewhere as a comatose pt, they need to go to a subacute facility, forever on a vent. That's the real reason why United Healthcare denied. "Not medically necessary" ('for hospitals' is what they left out).
If hospitals kept every uninduced comatose pt, they wouldn't be able to treat anyone else (think stroke, cardiac, trauma, severe pulmonary, etc). Pts with TBI for example, 50% will never have consciousness returned and just have to live in this vegetative state. . Not only that but hospital staff isn't trained to provide long term care. They aren't educated or specialized in doing so. Some hospitals only have let's say 20 ICU beds. Larger ones maybe 40. But even without people living in them, they are near 100% capacity every day.
Subacute facilities are also really difficult. They have trouble staying afloat because the care they provide is so expensive and most are reimbursed at a loss (Medi-Cal).
Theres lots of things wrong with the healthcare system but like this poster said, its not a good example. There are honestly literally millions of other examples that are absolutely egregious.
Y’all are making a lot of assumptions about this person’s life, as if you yourself were on the death panel. Maybe it’s, true, maybe it’s not, but the doctor knows more about the case and the patients prognosis than any of us
I know in the 10 years ive worked in a hospital ive never had a patient denied care in ICU unless the reason listed above. I also know A LOT about insurance, much more than most healthcare professionals. I also connect my doctors to insurance when we do need to appeal decisions and ask for a peer to peer.
Im not saying insurance never denies care. They do. Anecdotally though, never had incorrect denial with ICU. Its too easy to prove insurance definition of "medical necessity' there. I am still very doubtful of this specific example. Downvote all you want but the scanario I gave above is almost 100% probably what happened. I'm just explaining the process and likely what happened. Its okay if I'm not believed. I know what's true and how healthcare works. Its bittersweet that I have my job because I know how to navigate the healthcare system and get my patients what they need for their healthcare goals.
The fact that you have to be there and know the tricks to getting care is part of the problem. We have people who paid a crap load for medical insurance and doctors taking care of their treatment: why does there also need to be someone to deal with getting paid?
I'm not sure who this doctor is
This doctor is someone who knows a hell of a lot more about the situation than you do or the friends that I might ask that are in healthcare. Maybe, just maybe, he knows some information where it makes sense to continue treatment. You seem to be under the assumption that he did not share that information with the insurance.
I know in the 10 years ive worked in a hospital ive never had a patient denied care in ICU unless the reason listed above. I also know A LOT about insurance, much more than most healthcare professionals. I also connect my doctors to insurance when we do need to appeal decisions and ask for a peer to peer.
Im not saying insurance never denies care. They do. Anecdotally though, never had incorrect denial with ICU. Its too easy to prove insurance definition of "medical necessity' there. I am still very doubtful of this specific example. Downvote all you want but the scanario I gave above is almost 100% probably what happened. I'm just explaining the process and likely what happened. Its okay if I'm not believed. I know what's true and how healthcare works. Its bittersweet that I have my job because I know how to navigate the healthcare system and get my patients what they need for their healthcare goals.
Edit: Also, with the scanario above, almost 100% of ICU professionals would agree with insurance for the reasons listed above. We know how it feels to want to bring someone up from the ED but can't because we have beds already full... There are a very few select patients occasionally that want to live in the hospital. I'm aware we are encountering some people at their most vulnerable, traumatic times. It sucks. But they can't live there.
The only other reason I can think for denial is if treatment is experimental. Otherwise, its really easy to appeal and get the care approved in ICU.
@lemmy.world
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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
go to feed...
You'd think UHC would strive to behave impeccably with all the publicity around them lately. But no: they're so shameless and so greedy they even behave rotten when everybody is busy dissecting their every moves. Amazing...
save