This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
As minimum they should be obligated to answer yes/no questions like "is consulting with this specific doctor covered by my health insurance"
If that is too risky to answer I guess they can insure themselves.
Or force health insurance companies to make legally binding answers.
So the way this works is that for things that are planned (like a routine surgery or an office visit) you will give your insurance card to the team that works with that physician and they will figure out if the planned services are covered. If they are? Great. Easy.
Immediately this runs into some problems.
What if you go to the office and the doctor wants to perform an unplanned mild procedure? Do you want to come back a week later after insurance has been worked out or just get it done? I have literally seen patients been given this option and then forget about it when the bill comes.
What if you didn't plan going to the doctor? Your anesthesiologist for your emergency surgery may not be in network, but this is not planned you get what is available. The insurance should be forced to pay for this, but they are lobbying to not.
Healthcare delivery is a 24 hour problem. Insurances are not generally open 24 hours. This limits the ability to contact the insurance and ask if something is covered. Plenty of practice environments are open outside of insurance hours even for routine things. Sometimes patients spend extra days in a hospital waiting for insurance to approve the next phase of care.
Now you might say "well listen, just tell me if this DOCTOR is covered." Some places will have a website that will tell you if a doctor is in network or not. Sounds great right?
Well no, just because a doctor is in principle in network doesn't mean they actually cover anything that doctor does. They might be in network for emergency care, but not routine care, or reimburse less than cost for a given procedure so performing it is not financially sustainable. It's not uncommon for certain types of procedures to just not be done in non-emergency settings because insurances won't pay more than it costs to do the thing.
Lastly even if you get something done that is covered, with a doctor that is covered, and you checked in advance with your insurance to make sure that it was covered...sometimes they just won't cover it anyway. They have all kinds of random excuses and often this can be addressed by some combination of patient and physician appeals, but:
We don't know if something is covered by insurance because 5% of the time they decide not to cover what they said they said they would.
*I don't know the true number here it is probably wildly variable on region, insurance, and specialty. United being notoriously bad about this.
You are replying to short post that included "force health insurance companies to make legally binding answers".
Yes sorry, I though you were focusing on the doctor side of things which is what the rest of this mess is on about.
If you want to laser focus on that we still have problems, even as an insurance critically person I admit it's fair for them to go "okay I'll pay for it but you have to justify it correctly" because that prevents various bad actors in healthcare provision (including doctors) from doing sketchy stuff.
It's pretty fair for them to ask us to put into our note our medical decision making and only pay if it is justified.
But then they play games with what is required to justify it.
Mandate legally binding answers and you get "yes we will pay for this service if it is documented correctly." That is necessary but has chasm wide potential for abuse (and is generally what they do now).
Even if you were to hand wave away those problems that doesn't address after hours approval, delays in approval, surprise billing concerns and so on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link