UHC CEO Gunned Down in Midtown Manhattan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot please people. Medicine and hospitals have moved toward “customer care” instead of doing what the patient actually needs. While I’m sure lots of people are getting things denied they need, there are many many many people getting $$$$ care, tests, procedures they DONT need. They pressure doctors, demand things, are insistent and keep making appts- so rather than a doctor risk getting a “bad review” it’s just easier to write an order for what they want to shut them up and make them happy. And this is ultimately what the hospital CEOs want doctors to do. And this extends to TONS of waste money spent on futile tests and procedures on the elderly and those in nursing homes that can’t even consent. We need to reduce the cost of healthcare, but that involves telling people no to things. Doctors need to be given back that power and we need to take the customer service element out of medicine. This why when a doctor says yes something is needed- it will actually be covered

Doctors are often the ones doing things to pad their reimbursements. Until they're salaried, many will have a strong incentive to do unnecessary tests and procedures.

Um…most doctors are hospital employed and salaried. The days of self employed doctors are largely over

No, not the specialists that do the procedures. Heck, often the intensivists and ED physicians are outsourced.

The article posted above from propublkca about the terrible oncologist indicated that he has a bonus system based on the number of patients seen and procedures ordered — he was seeing like a hundred patients a day.

Part of the problem here (that I don’t know how to solve) is that in almost any system, a percentage of people will be incompetent or evil. So in the story posted above about the college student with colitis, my strong take away was that the internal doctor at the insurance company was totally incompetent (would not be surprised if he was an alcoholic or something), and (lesser problem), the claims adjuster seemed not very smart and like kind of a nasty person. The policy itself was reasonable but the low level people inplementkng it were just not very good. There’s an appeals process for that, and ultimately a right to litigate, but of course if you are sick, going through months of appeals and potentially litigation is not a great solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frankly I'm still happy the gun man has not been found. Hopefully he never is.

Gross

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

No, the problem lies not in the fact that people get cancer, but rather that when people get cancer, UHC refuses to honor their contract.

- parent of a kid who had a tumor in her skull for which UHC denied an MRI

Did you have a contract that said UHC would pay for an MRI anytime a doctor ordered one?

They were absolutely in the wrong denying that claim, if that’s what you’re asking.

Maybe, but sometimes they expect providers to do cheaper things first before ordering an MRI.

Duh. We are intelligent people who understand contract law and who can read medical reports and who understand ICD-10 and CPT codes and who did all the things, and I’m telling you: what happened was that UHC denied claims for which they were responsible at the exact moment our family needed care, which was the precise reason we had the policy in the first place.

But look at you, out here defending UHC, a billion dollar corporation, despite the mountain of evidence — reporting, statistics, and an outpouring of stories just like ours — that they consistently, deliberately, and as a matter of policy wrongly denied care to members who had dutifully honored their part of the bargain, often without a single human ever reviewing the file. Thank god you’re out here, looking out for the real heroes. Bless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The WP editorial board (who was told? Or wouldn’t? endorse a presidential candidate) wrote a whole column on why the response is uncalled for and that health insurances are a complex matter. Last I read, the comment section was tearing their arguments to pieces and saying they missed the point. I agree that his murder was wrong, plain and simple. But it’s interesting to compare the media vs the internet’s response. One is beholden to the rich.

Murdering proles en masse by denying health insurance claims, feeding them pain killers, and via drone strikes and carpet bombing are CLASSY and ACCEPTABLE. Pulling a pistol and doing it face to face is not.

Regards,
The Bezos Post & every corporate media outlet

You know who gave them painkillers? The doctors. The doctors who either took the word of a hot girl/guy from with a BA in bio from the pharma companies and/or didn’t do their homework and/or the doctors who saw a chance to make bank by just giving them out to everyone. So funny how the doctors always seem to get off scott free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

I don’t know if the CEO is a bad person or not. What’s concerning to me is that people seem to think that he is a bad person just because he runs a health insurance company.

I just don’t understand what people think the alternatives are. Should we have a system where every claim is approved, and people get whatever care they want? That would be great but you could expect much much higher premiums. I also like the idea of non-profit healthcare much better than for-profit healthcare — but that’s essentially what we used to have and most of those non-profit healthcare systems have gone out of business. UPMC is nominally non-profit but operates basically like a for-profit business in all respects.

I just truly do not understand what people want. This country has pretty definitely rejected a socialized medicine model. And everyone was so upset when premiums went up after the ACA put breaks on insurance company denials for preexisting conditions and lifetime limits.

Is UHC demonstrably worse than the other healthcare options out there? Or is the hate just for the system generally? My parents have UHC Medicare Advantage, as do a bunch of other retirees I know, and they’ve never had trouble with claim denial despite have pretty complicated medical needs.

I think the answer is yes, UHC is worse. And the whole notion of for-profit health insurance is distressing to many.

As for the exec, I think there’s a good case that the super rich CEOs are in some ways inherently bad. The pay packages are obscene and they put their own profit ahead of the good of the people who need health care.

On the question is whether UHC is worse….so should people be switching away from UHC with open enrollment season? My parents have UHC Medicare Advantage and have had a pretty good experience to date. Are there better Medicare Advantage type plans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

No, the problem lies not in the fact that people get cancer, but rather that when people get cancer, UHC refuses to honor their contract.

- parent of a kid who had a tumor in her skull for which UHC denied an MRI

Did you have a contract that said UHC would pay for an MRI anytime a doctor ordered one?

They were absolutely in the wrong denying that claim, if that’s what you’re asking.

Maybe, but sometimes they expect providers to do cheaper things first before ordering an MRI.

To find a brain tumor?

Yes, like a CT scan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

I don’t know if the CEO is a bad person or not. What’s concerning to me is that people seem to think that he is a bad person just because he runs a health insurance company.

I just don’t understand what people think the alternatives are. Should we have a system where every claim is approved, and people get whatever care they want? That would be great but you could expect much much higher premiums. I also like the idea of non-profit healthcare much better than for-profit healthcare — but that’s essentially what we used to have and most of those non-profit healthcare systems have gone out of business. UPMC is nominally non-profit but operates basically like a for-profit business in all respects.

I just truly do not understand what people want. This country has pretty definitely rejected a socialized medicine model. And everyone was so upset when premiums went up after the ACA put breaks on insurance company denials for preexisting conditions and lifetime limits.

Is UHC demonstrably worse than the other healthcare options out there? Or is the hate just for the system generally? My parents have UHC Medicare Advantage, as do a bunch of other retirees I know, and they’ve never had trouble with claim denial despite have pretty complicated medical needs.

I think the answer is yes, UHC is worse. And the whole notion of for-profit health insurance is distressing to many.

As for the exec, I think there’s a good case that the super rich CEOs are in some ways inherently bad. The pay packages are obscene and they put their own profit ahead of the good of the people who need health care.

On the question is whether UHC is worse….so should people be switching away from UHC with open enrollment season? My parents have UHC Medicare Advantage and have had a pretty good experience to date. Are there better Medicare Advantage type plans?

Have you needed UHC for anything other than routine care, like ordinary bloodwork, antibiotics, lower-cost meds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

No, the problem lies not in the fact that people get cancer, but rather that when people get cancer, UHC refuses to honor their contract.

- parent of a kid who had a tumor in her skull for which UHC denied an MRI

Did you have a contract that said UHC would pay for an MRI anytime a doctor ordered one?

They were absolutely in the wrong denying that claim, if that’s what you’re asking.

Maybe, but sometimes they expect providers to do cheaper things first before ordering an MRI.

Duh. We are intelligent people who understand contract law and who can read medical reports and who understand ICD-10 and CPT codes and who did all the things, and I’m telling you: what happened was that UHC denied claims for which they were responsible at the exact moment our family needed care, which was the precise reason we had the policy in the first place.

But look at you, out here defending UHC, a billion dollar corporation, despite the mountain of evidence — reporting, statistics, and an outpouring of stories just like ours — that they consistently, deliberately, and as a matter of policy wrongly denied care to members who had dutifully honored their part of the bargain, often without a single human ever reviewing the file. Thank god you’re out here, looking out for the real heroes. Bless.

Again, many insurance companies require prior authorization before MRIs because they expect cheaper diagnostic tests to be performed first. In the case of a suspected brain tumor, they might expect a CT scan to be done first. In other body parts, they like expect an ultrasound.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

No, the problem lies not in the fact that people get cancer, but rather that when people get cancer, UHC refuses to honor their contract.

- parent of a kid who had a tumor in her skull for which UHC denied an MRI

Did you have a contract that said UHC would pay for an MRI anytime a doctor ordered one?

They were absolutely in the wrong denying that claim, if that’s what you’re asking.

Maybe, but sometimes they expect providers to do cheaper things first before ordering an MRI.

Duh. We are intelligent people who understand contract law and who can read medical reports and who understand ICD-10 and CPT codes and who did all the things, and I’m telling you: what happened was that UHC denied claims for which they were responsible at the exact moment our family needed care, which was the precise reason we had the policy in the first place.

But look at you, out here defending UHC, a billion dollar corporation, despite the mountain of evidence — reporting, statistics, and an outpouring of stories just like ours — that they consistently, deliberately, and as a matter of policy wrongly denied care to members who had dutifully honored their part of the bargain, often without a single human ever reviewing the file. Thank god you’re out here, looking out for the real heroes. Bless.

Again, many insurance companies require prior authorization before MRIs because they expect cheaper diagnostic tests to be performed first. In the case of a suspected brain tumor, they might expect a CT scan to be done first. In other body parts, they like expect an ultrasound.

Again: duh.

Again: look at you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot please people. Medicine and hospitals have moved toward “customer care” instead of doing what the patient actually needs. While I’m sure lots of people are getting things denied they need, there are many many many people getting $$$$ care, tests, procedures they DONT need. They pressure doctors, demand things, are insistent and keep making appts- so rather than a doctor risk getting a “bad review” it’s just easier to write an order for what they want to shut them up and make them happy. And this is ultimately what the hospital CEOs want doctors to do. And this extends to TONS of waste money spent on futile tests and procedures on the elderly and those in nursing homes that can’t even consent. We need to reduce the cost of healthcare, but that involves telling people no to things. Doctors need to be given back that power and we need to take the customer service element out of medicine. This why when a doctor says yes something is needed- it will actually be covered

Doctors are often the ones doing things to pad their reimbursements. Until they're salaried, many will have a strong incentive to do unnecessary tests and procedures.

Um…most doctors are hospital employed and salaried. The days of self employed doctors are largely over

No, not the specialists that do the procedures. Heck, often the intensivists and ED physicians are outsourced.

Yes, most specialists, surgical and otherwise, are hospital employed and salaried. Even the “outsourced” ED physicians (or other) are sent by a locum agency that finds them and the hospital pays them hourly.

[Anonymous]

I don’t recall NYPD or the news outlets mentioning whether this guy spoke with an accent. Seems like that could be useful info? We know he spoke with the hostel clerk, hostel roommates, Starbucks clerk, and taxi drivers at a minimum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

No, the problem lies not in the fact that people get cancer, but rather that when people get cancer, UHC refuses to honor their contract.

- parent of a kid who had a tumor in her skull for which UHC denied an MRI

Did you have a contract that said UHC would pay for an MRI anytime a doctor ordered one?

They were absolutely in the wrong denying that claim, if that’s what you’re asking.

Maybe, but sometimes they expect providers to do cheaper things first before ordering an MRI.

To find a brain tumor?

Yes, like a CT scan.

Which is a to of radiation, and a good way to induce a brain tumor. CT is generally used for injuries where laying still is difficult or you need rapid diagnoses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot please people. Medicine and hospitals have moved toward “customer care” instead of doing what the patient actually needs. While I’m sure lots of people are getting things denied they need, there are many many many people getting $$$$ care, tests, procedures they DONT need. They pressure doctors, demand things, are insistent and keep making appts- so rather than a doctor risk getting a “bad review” it’s just easier to write an order for what they want to shut them up and make them happy. And this is ultimately what the hospital CEOs want doctors to do. And this extends to TONS of waste money spent on futile tests and procedures on the elderly and those in nursing homes that can’t even consent. We need to reduce the cost of healthcare, but that involves telling people no to things. Doctors need to be given back that power and we need to take the customer service element out of medicine. This why when a doctor says yes something is needed- it will actually be covered

Doctors are often the ones doing things to pad their reimbursements. Until they're salaried, many will have a strong incentive to do unnecessary tests and procedures.

Um…most doctors are hospital employed and salaried. The days of self employed doctors are largely over

No, not the specialists that do the procedures. Heck, often the intensivists and ED physicians are outsourced.

Yes, most specialists, surgical and otherwise, are hospital employed and salaried. Even the “outsourced” ED physicians (or other) are sent by a locum agency that finds them and the hospital pays them hourly.

You must have very limited experience with community hospitals. Heck, many of the smaller systems don't even work that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t recall NYPD or the news outlets mentioning whether this guy spoke with an accent. Seems like that could be useful info? We know he spoke with the hostel clerk, hostel roommates, Starbucks clerk, and taxi drivers at a minimum.

They're keeping back some information of course. Hostel roommates said he didn't speak

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

No, the problem lies not in the fact that people get cancer, but rather that when people get cancer, UHC refuses to honor their contract.

- parent of a kid who had a tumor in her skull for which UHC denied an MRI

Did you have a contract that said UHC would pay for an MRI anytime a doctor ordered one?

They were absolutely in the wrong denying that claim, if that’s what you’re asking.

Maybe, but sometimes they expect providers to do cheaper things first before ordering an MRI.

Duh. We are intelligent people who understand contract law and who can read medical reports and who understand ICD-10 and CPT codes and who did all the things, and I’m telling you: what happened was that UHC denied claims for which they were responsible at the exact moment our family needed care, which was the precise reason we had the policy in the first place.

But look at you, out here defending UHC, a billion dollar corporation, despite the mountain of evidence — reporting, statistics, and an outpouring of stories just like ours — that they consistently, deliberately, and as a matter of policy wrongly denied care to members who had dutifully honored their part of the bargain, often without a single human ever reviewing the file. Thank god you’re out here, looking out for the real heroes. Bless.

Again, many insurance companies require prior authorization before MRIs because they expect cheaper diagnostic tests to be performed first. In the case of a suspected brain tumor, they might expect a CT scan to be done first. In other body parts, they like expect an ultrasound.

A cranial ultrasound is worthless. I suspect you work on business side of insurance company, these exactly the foolishness short sighted trades they suggest that waste time and money.