domain:nfinf.substack.com
I remember once being billed for a 1 hour visit with a hematologist I never saw in person - my OB consulted with them. When I asked billing they replied, "That's because you saw the hematologist." No matter what I said, they kept insisting I had an in person visit with a hematologist, even had a specific date/time I supposedly saw him (though the visit did not show up in OneChart, hmmm?.) Eventually gave up because it was "only" 200 or so after insurance and I was dealing with the other hospital billing issues of being billed by the visiting hospitalist OB in a completely different system and it going to collections before I got a whiff of the charge.
They need to do a crossover with My Summer Car.
I mean, that's the problem. The system can be issue-based or it can be time-based. But it can't be both.
I thought lawyers billing me in 15 minute increments was bullshit
Bruh, we're at 0.1 hr (6min) increments. And I'm happy enough about it because they do good work and don't waste time. Remember you are paying a professional to deal with arbitrary issues.
But is it a "polar bear hunting" joke?
I would argue that he has been doing this with remarkable consistency since his first term.
But perhaps that messaging is what it takes to win a contract?
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.
This is fine for a steelman. But in real life the insurance company likes to treat prior authorization like a negotiation. That is, they'll start by just saying "no" regardless of whether the policy covers the thing or not. Then either the provider will argue with them, or the provider will say that the insurance company said "no" and leave the patient to argue with them if they care to.
I mean in the sense that doesn't match the meaning of 'price'. Conceptually a price is a fixed value that you will pay, not a variable. If you come in my store and ask the price of a sandwich, and I tell you $10, and then when you check out you're expected to pay $15, you would rightfully tell me I lied about the price.
Given that Concorde was not close to being transformative, I think Boom would need to be 10x better than Concorde to be transformative with >50% probability, and they seem to be going for 2x.
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.
There is also the converse problem -- I am friendly with a lot of doctors and they are all beyond frustrated that they will get an appointment for visit A and patients will expect them to also cover B,C,D and E. This is especially bad at the level of preventative visits turning into issue visits".
They have different approaches. Some will bill higher codes if patients want to talk about something outside the scope. Others will ask them to come back (or do a Telehealth followup). Sometimes they'll just eat it if the patient is quick about it. None of them have an objection to doing those visits, it's just that they aren't reflected in their scheduling or billing.
I expect upcoding is more of a problem than scope-creep, but I wanted to mention it because the symmetry is there.
As long as these are reasonably predictable, you can calculate a price.
I don't think that's true at all.
I'm sorry for being pedantic, but how does that mean what I said is "not true at all"? You literally just gave an example of a calculated price. Someone might not now a median from their ass, but you can tell them "just look at the expected value, bro". They can then use that information to compare with other providers.
Many don't like this but you can't really function in our system without having insurance
If you were to attempt to function in the system without insurance, how would you go about it? Asking for myself.
When I was younger I went uninsured for a few years, and a few more on a catastrophic plan, and happily didn't have any issues. Now I'm older and married and my wife has a lot of worries about not being insured (I currently have full health care coverage from my job but I'm about to leave that career). Conceptually I think 'health insurance' is a misnomer the way it's typically used, that only high cap catastrophic plans actually constitute insurance, and frankly that I'd much prefer saving and investing my money instead of giving it to an insurance company.
However, anecdotally I've heard it's a real pain to get medical care if you show up and say you don't have insurance, and that you'll just pay for everything yourself. So, do you have any advice on how to do that effectively?
It’s incredible how Orwell wrote something which, no matter one’s political affiliation, candidly describes one’s outgroup.
Yup, I played a few games with VP. It's very good. But it's not Civ 5. They basically created a new game with it. Which is fine, lots of people love it, but I actually like un-converted Civ 5 more, despite it having its issues with balance etc. VP nerfs the wonders too much for my liking, and the wars turn into long slogfests and meatgrinders. The AI fights them more skillfully, I'll give them that. But it wasn't necessarily super fun after a while.
I tried Lekmod too for a few games. It's very good. It's somewhere in-between in terms of how much it changes. Only real downside is they haven't added graphics for all their new civs/leader screens. You get many grey screens during diplomacy. It's mainly a multiplayer focused mod, where I guess you don't see leader screens or something.
I remember having to get an X-ray for an injury a few years ago and not a single person from the hospital or insurance company could give me a straight answer on how much it would cost me out of pocket. This was a procedure with extremely predictable costs and no potential for complications and still, after hours of navigating the insurance company's websites and phone trees, I had to give up. I'm sympathetic to the concept of price transparency generally but when it comes to healthcare I do have some concerns.
I've always wanted to ask those most ardently supportive of socialized healthcare: we have finite resources, where will you draw the line for what medical services we do and do not provide? Does grandma get a $300,000 chemotherapy course for a 60% chance at 2 months of vomiting and brain-fog? In a single payer system, the government has to make those decisions.
I saw my colleagues prescribing suboptimal drugs and thought they weren’t practicing evidence-based medicine. In reality, they were doing something better — practicing patient-based medicine. When people said they couldn’t afford a medication that their insurance didn’t cover, they would prescribe an alternative, even if it wasn’t the best available option.
The cost-benefit landscape is high-dimensional, fuzzy, and rapidly branching with time-delayed consequences. "Informed" consent is a complete misnomer and I have to wonder if given complete price transparency whether healthcare wouldn't completely devolve into a Market for Lemons. For those who want complete price transparency: do you think the populace is equipped to make those decisions for themselves? We have enough snake oil products as is. How long before a price transparent but information asymmetric free market devolves into the same? The current system seems to eliminate the principal-agent problem, giving doctors less incentive to stray from optimizing for standard of care (hopefully one of our resident doctors can comment on whether this is at all an accurate assessment or a complete misinterpretation). The downside is this price-opaque mess. I'm not sure if the alternative is better or worse for society at large. Do you really want hospitals cutting corners and trying to undercut competitors on prices? A/B testing in medicine takes years of expensive and coordinated clinical trials. It's not something as quickly self-correcting as a restaurant going back to more costly ingredients because their customers notice the decline in quality and the consequences aren't as trivial as a bad meal.
Boom is reasonably likely (2:1 odds) to get commercialized supersonic passenger transport by 2040. I think that will seem like a mere evolutionary change (plane go faster) but, if it succeeds and scales, will be transformative.
Maybe it shouldn't be called "mental health"
That's my point, and that's why I caveated my post with "Tangent"
but what would you prefer for such a reasonable ask?
Nothing. It is, in fact, a reasonable ask. It's not a mental health question. "Patient comfort" sure, "procedural professionalism" whatever.
I don't think it was your intention, but please try to avoid conflating the points I'm making.
Ditto for the conversations a couple years back about how the UK Tories were showing everyone what right-wing competence looked like.
I was thinking a lot about that one too.
Major complications of surgery are 1%-10% depending what we are talking about, certainly orders of magnitude more (yes I know I'm missing some things about car insurance for the sake of simplicity)
As long as these are reasonably predictable, you can calculate a price.
I don't think that's true at all. You can calculate an expected value, but 90%+ of patients won't understand that. If you tell them the price of a procedure is $2000 dollars, but the typical/median price is $1000 and the max is a million, how are they supposed to use that information?
Girl Genius was well-enough regarded in the Hugo set that they had to actively refuse nominations into the start of the Sad Puppies era, and they're still pretty well-regarded among the tumblr set, modulo a few (not wrong!) complaints about the comic's pacing. I'd like to say they've been grandfathered in, but I'd said the same for Lackey and was proven wrong, so I'll guess it's more that even if they're not faster than the bears, they're at least faster than the other guys.
((Fair on the het bit; especially given the fandom, it is unusual that the closest thing to an in-universe mention of a gay pairing in Girl Genius has been joking references to Othar/Gil. There was one M/M bit in one of the old XXXenophile, but it was actively less erotic than one where a guy's brain had been transplanted into a dog. Given conventions of the convention circuits of the 1990s (where there was a much stricter wall between gay and straight than today) and the amount of F/F the series had, I was never sure whether this was just down to the Foglio's audience, but it probably does point to Kaja not being a fujoshi.))
With this latest capitulation, I've thought about doing a bit of a gentle retrospective over the various long-running fan debates here on the motte over whether or not The New Stuff was or wasn't a good idea. Most of those conversations died off as most of the old-timer Blues left, but it seems now the writing is pretty much on the wall.
Ditto for the conversations a couple years back about how the UK Tories were showing everyone what right-wing competence looked like.
I think the author is making a somewhat more reasonable point than "we shouldn't have to worry about the bill" - it's that they shouldn't be having such a worry added on last-minute to the existing worries of a surgery! Maybe it shouldn't be called "mental health", but what would you prefer for such a reasonable ask?
It's totally unrealistic. Not once did the player character need to take a shit despite the length of the journey.
So, in an unexpected instance of "the system works" would this imply that the frequent flyer hypochondriac who asks the doctor dozens of follow up questions, thereby turning a 15 min consultation into a 45 minute one, will actually end up paying (either directly, or via their insurer) more?
Hospitals have entire departments whose job it is to comb through notes.
Fuck. That. Noise. So, an army of functionaries use their best judgement to try to translate a doctor's notes into one or more of a series of codes to reconstruct the exact service provided? I thought lawyers billing me in 15 minute increments was bullshit. After the fact reconstruction of what happened layered with overly hierarchical categorization is a new level of theft.
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.
I haven't seen your details, but the complex issue could be the ED physician and the extra doctor's time was probably the radiologist. It's not double counting.
More options
Context Copy link