| |
| ▲ | tptacek an hour ago | parent [-] | | What difference is that supposed to make? The money is still going into the pockets of practitioners. And: no, the claim you're making here about practitioners fighting insurers: closer to the opposite thing is true. The idea that the problem with our system is health insurers is just slopulism. We have grave problems with our system! But they start with the providers, where the majority of all the funding in our system goes, not to the scapegoats they've stoop up in our insurers. The distinction is vitally important, because the most popular answer to this problem is to extend Medicare to everybody, and Medicare is just as victimized by this as everything else is! We pay doctors too much, and we artificially restrict the supply of practitioners. Those doctors routinely overprescribe. Every other problem in the system is marginal. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz an hour ago | parent [-] | | "The money is still going into the pockets of practitioners." And by inflating that amount... > Using newly available federal price transparency data, the researchers found that UnitedHealthcare pays Optum physician practices about 17% more than non-Optum practices in the same region. In markets where UnitedHealthcare holds a large share of the insurance business, that difference was even larger, up to 61%. their capped-by-law 20% cut of premiums goes up, too. "Oh, those mean old providers we own charge so much! We have to raise premiums again!" | | |
| ▲ | tptacek an hour ago | parent [-] | | Show me the more recent NHE table where this effect shows up and I'll be ready to have the conversation, but right now this seems like a dodge. Whatever effect you're describing, if it's material, has to have started after the NHE data I just posted, from 2023. I don't remember thinking that the health system in 2022 was good. Fun thing about the NHE: you can project it as far back as you want. The data is there. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Whatever effect you're describing, if it's material, has to have started after the NHE data I just posted, from 2023. What? Insurers have been playing this game far further back than 2023. If an insurer doubles the time a doc has to fight over denials and has to hire extra billing staff to assist, where do you imagine that cost shows up? | | |
| ▲ | tptacek an hour ago | parent [-] | | I feel like we've been in this argument before, and I like you just fine as a commenter, but do feel like you're tying yourself into knots to avoid a simple conclusion plainly supported by the data. I didn't post a trend story about what companies are doing or who they're acquiring; I posted the macro NHE table from last year. It simply refutes the argument you're trying to make. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > I posted the macro NHE table from last year. Again: how will the “insurers force provider costs up” show up in said tables? It’s caused by the insurer. It shows as a provider’s cost. But it doesn’t mean said doc is making any more money at the end of the day. The insurer does, though! Their 20% cut got bigger, and the "computer says no" denials are cheap! TL;DR: Where in your link does "doc spends needless hours on phone fighting insurer" show up as a cost? | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
