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 -
NYT Continues Medical Pricing Beat
They're starting to get closer.
It is well-known that the NYT will plan out long-term foci for sustained coverage, taking their own perspective, keeping it in their pages in a variety of ways. I've covered a few in recent months; this one is in the "Your Money" section.
The piece focuses on the author's experience with his wife's mastectomy for breast cancer plus reconstructive surgery and the role that prior authorization played in it. What's that?
Why? The only reason they describe comes from their characterization of the insurance industry's response:
I'd like to steelman the idea of prior authorization by rolling it into my own perspective that I've been trying to sustain over time.
The fundamental principle is that prices matter to patients. This statement simultaneously seems trivial and is also quite profound in context of the medical industry. There are doctors even here on The Motte who have sworn up and down that prices don't matter, but frankly, they're just wrong about this. This NYT piece reinforces this basic principle, though it does not state it quite so forthrightly.
That is, the story of the article is that, two days before the planned surgery, the author and his wife
This was disconcerting to them, which is somewhat strange if one thinks that prices don't matter. It seemed to matter to them. He writes:
Contrary to what you might have heard doctors say, that prices don't matter because patients can't possibly make choices with price information, they actually can. Here are actual people, considering making the choice to skip a possibly life-saving surgery, because they have uncertainty concerning the price. I've pointed before to another, doctor-written op-ed in NYT that acknowledges this reality:
It also tells the story of an emergency room patient, in quite bad condition, that the author really felt should be admitted as an inpatient. The patient was concerned about the possible cost. No one could tell him anything. He chose to go home that evening.
Prices matter. Patients will make choices based on prices. Patients will make choices based on uncertainty about prices. This week's NYT piece drives this home with yet another example, this time concerning a surgical procedure.
They ultimately decided to go through with it, and it turns out that the author managed to talk to a billing specialist from the surgery provider while his wife was under the knife. What he learned:
Let's ignore the whackiness (and the veracity) of the claim that the provider would eat any uncovered charges for now. The article makes a fair amount of hash over the issue that they hadn't opted-in for electronic communications from their insurance company, so they only received a delayed snail mail, but the provider was notified earlier and didn't tell them either! Why not?
They are just sooo addicted to price opacity; it's ridiculous. The author is not buying it:
Prices matter. Prices matter. Prices matter. Get it through your thick skulls, providers and insurers. Just tell your patients. Tell them. They need to know. They're currently making decisions under uncertainty, and you can just tell them. The author closes with basically this exact plea:
Just tell the patient what's going on. Just tell them the price. Do it before services are rendered.
Ok, with the basics out of the way, I should probably get around to that steelman of prior authorization that I promised. The fact of the matter is that there are going to be some drugs/procedures that insurance won't cover, at least under some circumstances. There's probably not a reasonable way out of this with a rule like, "Insurance must just cover literally anything all the time, no matter what." Obviously, there's going to be a spectrum, with some routine things being covered ~100% of the time, with others having significantly more variance. The useful idea behind prior authorization is that the provider and the insurance company should get together... get their shit together... and figure out what the price is going to be for the patient. And, frankly, that makes sense, especially for items that often have significant variance. It's hard to make hard and fast rules here, but my sense that many insurance companies have a list of items where there is significant variance and so they require prior authorization.
It is good for them to get their shit together. It would be even better for them to get their shit together more routinely and then to tell the patient what things are going to cost. It is a pox on both their houses that they haven't gotten their shit together. The old NYT op-ed was written by a doctor, so it's no surprise that they wanted to put all the blame on the insurance companies. This week's was written by just a guy, one of the journalists on staff, talking about his own experience, and he more rightfully pointed out that both providers and insurers are failing.
NYT is getting closer, but they're not quite there yet. They've given multiple examples of why giving patients prices matters, but they haven't quite figured out that they just need to beat that drum directly.
A brief tangent on medical billing that US-based Mottizens may find useful.
So back in college I worked for an insurance company for a short amount of time. While there I received a crash course in medical billing, and what I learned ended up being pretty helpful in disputing a bill I received a few years later. All doctor's offices, hospitals, and clinics across the country (the US) use a standardized billing method. While the actual paper bill may look different, each and every one will provide you with a list of common codes for the services you received. These are called Current Procedural Terminology Codes, or CPT Codes. These codes are published by the American Medical Association (AMA) and get very, very, granular. When you receive a bill, it is to your benefit to look up these five-digit codes to make sure that they match the treatment you received. Hospitals have a perverse incentive to "upcode" your bill, that is to put down a code for a higher tier/cost, of treatment that you received. This is illegal, but it happens with shocking regularity.
Consider code 97161, "pt eval low complex 20 min." That is, a healthcare provider spent between 0 and 20 minutes in the room with the patient, providing an evaluation of a low complexity issue. An unethical hospital might "upcode" this to 97163, "pt eval high complex 45 min." Or you might have gone in for a G2251, "brief chkin, 5-10, non-e/m." That is a brief check-in for 5-10 minutes for a non-emergency issue, which might get up-coded to a 97161.
You will rarely, if ever, know the exact proper code for what you went in for. You're not supposed to. This is arcane back-end stuff the patient is not supposed to ever really understand. But the list is public information, and you can very easily check the codes you were billed against the list of treatments. Being able to respond to a bill with specific questions, such as "why was I billed for an hour-long patient interaction when the doctor was only in the room for 20 minutes?" is a very effective way of disputing a medical bill.
I would advise people to be extremely careful about this because the rules are frequently revised, confusing, or impenetrable to patients.
Yeah you do see issues with straight up fraudulent charges at times (usually you see this in Medicare when someone gets caught and obliterated by a federal prosecutor) but usually it's completely by the book or mild but justified up-coding. Hospitals have entire departments whose job it is to comb through notes and make sure they extract every dollar from insurance.
Does talking to the patient about their relationship count as brief therapy? What if the psychiatrist uses CBT language you aren't familiar with? Does an ear lavage count as a procedure? Does time based billing refer to purely face to face time or does coordination of care, medication ordering, and documentation count? Can you use MDM as part of your E/M instead of or in addition to time based billing? When was the last time the answers to any of these questions changed?
Doctors often go to workshops that teach them how to bill correctly, yes to up-code but also to make sure they don't accidentally commit fraud by putting something in wrong. It's hard.
If you complain you may get some stuff knocked off but it's very possible you are making an accidental fraudulent complaint and they just don't want to fight about it.
Especially if your insurance is paying, help the health system out dawg.
The doctor is unlikely to find out you did complain but if it's an iterated relationship and you keep doing this you will end up with worse service because they'll get told to clean up their documentation and be careful and it will knock them out of their flow state and likely result in petty inconveniences (ex: more likely to rely to mychart with 'schedule an appointment'").
For OP specifically - I'm obviously a homer for the medical care side of things but you should consider that insurance companies are famous for incorrectly denying things that were provided and even things were provided and billed correctly.
An issue that made be angry recently was that my kid's emergency room stay was upcoded from level 2 to level 4 because they wanted to take an ultrasound, which meant an extra $2k in charge, but then they charged be separately $3k for the ultrasound and $1k for the doctor's time. I asked, why is it level 4 when we weren't urgent, it took us 6 hours to be admitted? The answer is that the guidelines say that level 4 is when "more complex decision making is required" or a diagnostic test like an ultrasound is required, which is what they did. OK, but then you charged us separately for the ultrasound and the doctor's time, so you are essentially double-counting. The bot-like tier 1 billing support person did not understand this argument though, and since I already had paid the bill I had no leverage.
Your best bet when dealing with medical bills Act Like a Dot Indian. 'I'm not paying that, it is too much'. They'll knock it down eventually.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link