Being blown off by health care can cost you your life...

Dealing with corporations is hard. Robots answer your calls, but not your questions. They are programmed to give you the information the company wants you to have, not the answers you need. It is very difficult to ever find a “monitored” email address to write to. It is like they don’t want to hear from you (except in the ubiquitous and totally structured “tell us how we’re doing” requests). Charges (as I experienced recently) are posted to your credit card immediately. Refunds, even when they agree to one, can take 45 days (by policy).

People, on the other hand, are almost always good and helpful. If you have the time and patience and willingness to scream “representative” at the phone often enough to actually get one, they mostly are polite, empathic, and usually resolve your problem (unless such resolution is prohibited by company policy). At least they answer your questions. It is amazing but not surprising that companies make it so hard to get to them. After all, they may help you out. Which is not what the company wants; they want your money and you be gone! Robots are also cheaper, thus increasing profit (and unemployment).

And so it is with healthcare. In which case it can be a disaster. I don’t mean that the waste of your time and money with other corporations is ok, or even just bad, or that it cannot financially be a disaster. But in health care we are talking about the health and even lives of you and your family. If you can’t get hold of your health care providers, you can’t get seen and cared for, or get the information that you need to do what you need to do, or to be seen elsewhere. This is, again, not the fault of or the result of the actions of the actual people who care for you, who if you can get in to see them or speak to them on the phone are usually very helpful. It is the fault of the system that is structured to prevent you from getting to them, because less use by you results in more profit for them.

That, of course, is at the provider level. At the insurer level, we enter a whole new region of Bizarro World. You get insurance. You find a provider. You see your provider. They recommend a treatment plan. You agree. Now the insurance company, which has a policy requiring “prior authorization” for virtually everything, denies payment. There may not be a good, or even any, medical reason for denying payment, and, if you appeal, they may pay because, after all, there is good medical reason. But denial as a first line response is great -- for them. Most people don’t appeal. They often don’t know that they can, or how to. So, for the insurer, problem solved. Of course, their problem was that they were going to have to pay money, and now they don’t. Your problem? Not solved. And your problem was your health, treatment for your disease. Whoops.

Prior authorization is an effective tool used by insurers to not pay for your care. It is more ubiquitous in “managed care” plans (HMOs, PPOs) than in open insurance plans. Of course, the latter are getting much rarer. It is cheaper for your employer to enroll you in a managed care plan. (Noticing a theme here?) Medicaid the (almost always dreadfully inadequate) public state/federal partnership for covering the poor is mostly (41 states including DC) turned over to managed care. One of the last bastions for fee-for-service, Medicare (the federal insurance plan for the aged, blind, and disabled) is quickly moving in that direction, with over 50% of Medicare patients not enrolled in actual Medicare but rather in “Medicare Advantage” (sic) programs, essentially private HMO-type plans paid for with Medicare funds. Now Medicare patients too can experience the advantages of managed care (like eyeglasses and gym memberships) as well as the disadvantages (like limited provider networks and denials of payment when you actually get sick).

A lot of the burden on privately-insured patients is demonstrated in research by Sukreth A. Shashikumer et al. in Financial Burden of Health Care in the Privately Insured US Population,
JAMA Internal Medicine, May 28, 2024, and summarized in the Health Justice Monitor.  

Among low-income families, mean total health care spending was $3163 in 2007 and $3247 in 2019. Low-income families’ medical burden was 23.5% in 2007 and 26.4% in 2019.  Among higher-income families, mean total health care spending increased from $4071 in 2007 to $5239 in 2019. Higher-income families’ medical burden was 5.4% in 2007 and 6.5% in 2019.

It’s bad for everyone but is, as always, worse for lower income people. This is also described in detail in a recent article by the Associated Press’ Tom Murphy, “Being a patient is getting harder in a strained and complex US health care system” (June 2, 2024), which describes the direct negative impact of insurance company denials on people’s health. The article discusses how some coverage for patient navigators helps, but the core problem is that is in the interest of the insurer to not spend money. Some MA plans like to say that they are enhancing health equity by covering a lot of low-income and minority people. Of course, this is only because the up-front costs are less. Those people pay when they get sick not only with dollars (co-pays, deductibles) but with their health (limited networks, denial of care).

And the majority of Medicaid recipients are children, and they are not immune from being denied care by their insurance companies, as revealed in a report from the General Accounting Office (GAO) and described by Wendell Potter in his “Health Care Un-covered” substack. It reports that insurers use both prior authorization and denial of payment for services, called EPSDT (Early Prevention, Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment) that the law REQUIRES be provided!

Contrasting traditional (real) Medicare with Medicare Advantage is useful here. You pay into Medicare your whole working life. When you are old enough and receive it, traditional Medicare pays for the services you receive (with some important limits, mainly only 80% of hospitalizations, requiring a Medigap plan). Medicare Advantage however, receives the money for your care from Medicare up front. Their incentive, then, is to keep it, by spending as little as possible on your care. That’s it in a nutshell. It is described in more depth in the report from Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), “Taking Advantage: How corporate health insurers harm America’s seniors.”

It is awful how badly corporations treat people. The laws and regulations need to be changed, to require them to provide the goods and services they have been paid for, and to make access for concerns or complaints, including access to actual people, easy. But completely different rules need to be in place for healthcare. If I can’t get through to most companies until Monday, I can live with that. If my credit card company keeps me going through the hoops on the phone for a half hour or more before I can talk to a person, I am only wasting time. But if this happens when I am trying to access health care, I can get very sick or die! Waiting 6 hours to be seen in the ER is not the answer. Neither are prior authorization, denials, and delays, for sick children, vulnerable seniors, poor people, or any of us.

What can we do? Write and call our congresspeople and demand that they eliminate profit-making insurers from healthcare. Perhaps some are not stupid (believing what lobbyists tell them, such as that Medicare Advantage increases equity) or corrupt (gleefully accepting those lobbyists contributions) and actually care about the health of their constituents.

Tell them to sign on to the Improved and Expanded Medicare for All bills in the House (Pramila Jayapal and Debbie Dingell, primary sponsors) and Senate (Bernie Sanders), and to sign the Patients Over Profits pledge being promoted by National Nurses United and other organizations.

Or you won’t vote for them.

It's all corporate now. Why do we stand for it?

"Sick. Help. That’s it!”

“John Q,” played by Denzel Washington, whose son needs a heart transplant which the insurance company has denied coverage for

 

There are still people in health care – admittedly mostly administrators and pundits and some doctors, highly-paid folks who think of themselves as “leaders” rather than “bosses” – who see the restrictions that the health insurance system places on people accessing health care as a good thing. They say that it keeps the lid on health care costs by limiting the use of “expensive and unnecessary” services by people who want “too much” of it. Luckily, for me, I no longer run into those with such views very often, and I like to think that there are fewer of them now.

These are often the same folks who supported, and continue to support, “managed care”, generally thought of as HMOs and PPOs, and their senior partner, Medicare Advantage plans (which are essentially HMOs or PPOs paid for with Medicare dollars). The techniques developed for restricting care in these plans have now been adopted by the health insurance industry overall. “Prior authorization”, which often means “delayed or denied authorization” has become one of the key strategies for restricting your access to health care services.

Restricting your access to health care is presumably not the specific intention of these practices. It would be mostly incorrect to portray health insurance executives as mean, grasping devils rubbing their hands together, like Mr. Burns, the boss in “The Simpsons”, in pleasure at your pain. They are actually mean, grasping devils rubbing their hands together in pleasure at the amount of money that they are making; your pain is incidental. I don’t know how many look like Mr. Burns.

HMOs, or what we now call HMOs, were not always money-grubbing deniers of care. Most of the early ones were consumer cooperatives (with the notable exception of Kaiser-Permanente, developed by Henry Kaiser for employees of his steel company, so he and not the insurance companies would make more money) like Group Health in Seattle, HIP in New York, and Ross-Loos in LA, designed to cut out the insurance companies so that members could get the same care for less money, or more care for the same money.  Without the profit motive in play, truly unnecessary care (sometimes that had been ordered by physicians or hospitals who stood to make money on it) could be avoided, and more necessary care provided. They often contracted with physician practice groups that were owned by the physicians themselves, rather than a corporation that violated the laws against corporate practice of medicine. Kind of vaguely socialist. Kind of good for people. Kind of quaint.

If you’re old enough, you may remember this kind of thing. In the 1980s the Reagan administration sought to expand them (naming them HMOs) as a method of cutting the cost of health care. Or, at least, cutting the costs that were expended in delivering actual health care. The plan involved encouraging insurance companies to buy up and establish their own HMOs, so it wasn’t too long before the reality of a consumer cooperative HMO was, in most places, history. Owned mostly by insurance companies, and increasingly with vertical integration, those dollars formerly “wasted” on providing “unnecessary” health care could now be turned into executive compensation and corporate profit. Some people may think this is a bad trade-off, that making money for corporations instead of providing health care for people is truly waste, but those holding such anachronistic and naïve ideas are wrong. At least in the opinion of those controlling the corporations! And their policy apologists.

This innovation was such a success (at making money) that it was expanded to a much wider base of health insurance. The old kind of insurance (often managed by the non-profit Blue Cross/Blue Shield, before they became the for-profit Anthem), that covered people for their health care needs, did not try to beat them down with denials, paid a reasonable amount to providers, and took a reasonable fee for their work, gradually became a thing of the past. These were sneered at as “Cadillac plans” (only when the beneficiaries were union members, of course not when they were executives!)  losing hold with each successive series of union contract negotiations. The executives kept their solid gold Cadillacs while union members and other employees were pushed lower and lower down until their coverage became a shadow of what it formerly was, and they often found themselves denied the care they needed and used to get.

There is a little historical irony here, in that the labor movement sowed the seeds of its own destruction by making health insurance a contract benefit. After World War II, unions in other countries fought to make health care available to all people; in Britain the party that was elected to govern actually had “Labour” in its name and introduced the National Health Service. In the US, the government instituted wage and price controls, so, unable to bargain for higher wages, unions bargained for health insurance as a way to recruit members. It was good for the members, but not so good for the nonunionized workforce. And the bosses liked it too; employer contributions to health insurance are not taxed, whereas wages are. Anyone who thinks that that such things as employer-sponsored health insurance is a “generous benefit” that is not paid for by the employee through lower wages is wrong. So, while the poor and non-unionized ended up on their own, the US labor movement got its members health insurance, often excellent health insurance. For about 30 years.

Now it’s all owned by corporations, the whole shebang. Insurance, providers groups, pharmacies, nursing homes. Many of these corporations are insurance companies, like the biggest, UnitedHealth, which also owns doctor group Optum and pharmaceutical benefit (PBM) manager OptumRx. And I am sure that, while many practices went under because they weren’t paid as a result of a major cyberattack on United subsidiary Change Healthcare, United itself is doing fine, making $8.5B in the first quarter (after all, by not paying those practices, they got to keep their money in the bank paying interest)! Other corporations are owned by private equity funds, which don’t even pretend to have any interest whatever other than maximizing their profit. Indeed, these are arguably even worse since they are sometimes happy to destroy the companies (and thus the services they provide) if that makes them the most.

The idea that a significant part of the cost of health care is overuse of services by patients would be pretty funny if it were not so serious, and for the fact that any such overuse is dwarfed by the number of people not getting adequate care, paying too much (in premiums and deductibles and co-payments and lost wages) for care, or being unable to access care altogether. That is the big problem, and as always it is the lowest income (and disproportionately minority) people who are hurt worst.

And even if you do believe that overuse is a problem, there is no conceivable way that any half-sentient, half-decent human being could possibly believe that money going to corporate and private equity profits is not waste and is a better use than providing health care to people. It is amazing that there any who do, but they include a lot of folks being paid by them – including members of Congress.

So: tell your Congressperson that YOU don’t think so, and that money appropriated for health care for people should be use for that, not raked off by insurance companies and other corporations, and it is their job to make that happen!

The insurance company mafia and Medicare Advantage: Taking your money and denying you care

If the government were considering ways of making small businesses function more effectively to meet the needs of their customers and make a reasonable living for their owners, they would consider the stakeholders. Those might reasonably be the owners, the customers, and perhaps the suppliers. And, of course the gangsters who supplied “protection" to the owners – that is, protecting them from damage that might occur if the owners didn’t pay up.

Oh. You don’t think so? Why would we include the gangsters who just prey upon these businesses, drive up costs and thus probably prices, and threaten bodily harm to innocent people? Well, why not? After all, they have a stake in those businesses as well. If this seems like a ridiculous idea, consider the fact that we do it whenever we consider changes to our healthcare system in the United States. Except, in that case, it is the health insurance, a huge parasitic industry that preys on the health of the American people by sucking out billions in profit from funds intended to pay for our actual health care. We not only allow it, we encourage it!

The patchwork nature of health insurance coverage in the US is incredible. Many folks are coverage by policies held by their employers, or the employers of family members, but the employer contribution has been decreasing with increases in what employees have to pay in premiums, co-pays, and co-insurance. Others are covered by government programs – indeed, when considering all of these including Medicare, Medicaid, military families and retirees, employees and families of federal, state, and local government – public funds are more than half our health expenditures, rising to about 60% if the taxes foregone by the government because (unlike wages) employer contributions but not employee contributions) to health insurance are tax free. And still others have insurance through the ACA (Obamacare) or actually pay their whole cost. And, of course, lots and lots of people are uninsured.

And the coverage for those who are insured varies tremendously, from plan to plan, insurer to insurer, employer to employer. Many policies are so bad that those who have them are almost as bad off as the uninsured – but they are paying for it. People get low-cost policies because this is what they can afford,  but pay the price when they find out they are sick. It is bad, bad, bad, inefficient, incredibly expensive, and, like all “protection” plans, beneficial only to the insurance company mafia. But it is even, in a way, more egregious when we consider how it has cannibalized Medicare, the federal program that is supposed to cover the aged, blind, and disabled. Not that it is ok to screw the younger, non-blind or disabled portion of our population, but Medicare, passed in 1965, was supposed to ensure health care for the elderly, who are, in fact, more likely to be sick.

But then we get “Medicare Advantage” (also known as Medicare Part C), pushed by successive Republican administrations and assented to by the Democrats who seem to believe the hype. Let’s be clear about what MA is and is not. It is NOT Medicare, the program funded by your Medicare taxes from your paycheck (Part A) or general revenue + you (Part B). It is private health insurance being paid for with Medicare dollars (and the MA insurers get more, per capita than Medicare itself). It is usually a PPO or HMO plan, which can (and does, its essential character) restrict the health care providers (doctors, hospitals, etc.) you can use, and can and does make it more difficult to get care by denying payment (illegal as such; it is supposed to cover, by law, everything Medicare does, but it can delay and delay by repeated denials) or requiring prior authorization for – everything. Sometimes until it is too late and you die. We’ll look at some examples.

In a piece subtly titled “Deny, deny, deny”, NBC News on Oct 31, 2023 describes how rural hospitals, usually the sole community provider, are losing so much money from MA plans denying their claims that they are either in danger of closing or at least will no longer accept MA. That, of course, creates major problems for their patients covered by MA plans – remember, they are not a problem until you get sick! ‘Rose Stone of Holly Springs, Miss., said she stopped going to her doctor after her Medicare Advantage plan wouldn't pay for the visits. “It was a mess,” Stone told NBC News. “I didn’t go to the doctor because I was going to have to pay out-of-pocket money I didn’t have.”’

The Washington Post, on Nov 29, 2023, in Hospitals and doctors are fed up with Medicare Advantage, discusses that they are not only fed up, but they are refusing to accept MA plans because it does not pay them for the services that they provide. Scripps Health in San Diego joined Mayo Clinic and many other facilities in not taking any MA plans. The problem with the article is it can be read to imply that doctors and hospitals are greedy, since ‘Medicare Advantage plans are pretty popular with both lawmakers and ordinary Americans — they now enroll about 31 million people, representing just over half of everyone in Medicare, by KFF’s (Kaiser Family  Foundation) count.’ Popular with lawmakers because, a lot, they are heavily lobbied by insurers and get campaign contributions from them. Popular with ordinary Americans in the same way that a lot of things are popular – they are heavily advertised and cheaper on the front end than having to buy a Medicare Supplement plan because Medicare only pays 80% of the money it approves for covered services. And they provide glasses, and dental, and often drugs without a separate Part D plan, and even gym memberships! Great! Until you really need care…like Ms. Stone.

Or like the woman who was denied coverage by Cigna for a lung transplant and died, as discussed by former insurance executive and current whistleblower Wendell Potter in his substack, “Health Care Un-Covered”, on Nov 27, 2023. Or the reports of massive denials, including those that break the law, identified by ProPublica in partnership with Scripps News and reported by Potter on Nov 30, 2023. These are not isolated stories; they occur all the time.

Potter also testified in favor of retirees from Cortland County,  NY, when the county was trying to push them all into an MA plan run by UnitedHealth. For this year, at least, they were successful, arguing basically about how Prior Authorizations (PAs) required by UnitedHealth would limit their care. At the last minute, under discovery, they obtained a (possibly incomplete) list of services requiring PA…essentially everything (see the list at the end of this post)! And if anyone is worried that these doctors and hospitals wanting to be paid for the work that they actually do for people’s health (remember – insurance companies do ZERO of this!) will bankrupt the MA plans, we can look at their profits. In a piece Potter wrote looking at how Cigna is trying to acquire Humana to get a piece of the MA market he provides the profit made by the largest players in the industry: Cigna $7.28B on revenues of $181B, Humana $4.2B on revenues of $93B, and industry leader UnitedHealth $28.4B on revenues of $324B – nearly 9%! ALL of this is on money that was intended to be spent on providing health care to Medicare recipients! No wonder they can pay for your gym membership! They sure ain’t hurting!

Other countries have much less complex and arcane coverage systems. You’re born, you’re covered. Everyone is in, no one is out. Pretty much everyone is in the same plan. That is what we could have if we had an expanded (to everyone) and improved (covering 100%, not 80%, of ALL necessary services, including mental health, dental, vision, hearing, drugs, long-term care) Medicare for All.

But the insurance company mafia stands in the way. Contact your senators and congresspeople! 

    From Wendell Potter, list of services (possibly incomplete) requiring PA from UnitedHealth:

The list includes:

• Cardiac rehabilitation services
• Intensive cardiac rehabilitation services
• Chiropractic services
• Outpatient diagnostic colonoscopy
• Supplies to monitor blood glucose
• Continuous glucose monitors
• Therapeutic shoes for people with diabetes
• Durable medical equipment
• Diagnostic hearing and balance evaluations
• Home infusion therapy
• Inpatient services in a psychiatric hospital
• Medicare Part B drugs and non-chemotherapy drugs to treat cancer
• Medicare-covered chemotherapy drugs to treat cancer and the administration of that drug
• Opioid treatment services
• Outpatient diagnostic tests and therapeutic services and supplies, including x-rays and other radiation therapies
• Lab tests and other diagnostic tests
• Outpatient mental health care
• Outpatient rehabilitation services
• Outpatient substance abuse services
• Outpatient surgery and other medical services at hospital outpatient and ambulatory surgical centers
• Partial hospitalization services and intensive outpatient services
• Basic hearing and balance exams
• Some telehealth services
• Second opinions prior to surgery
• Non-routine dental care
• Monitoring services in a physician’s office or outpatient setting
• Medically necessary medical and surgical services that are provided at home or nursing home
• Prosthetic devices
• Pulmonary rehabilitation services
• Skilled nursing care
• Supervised exercise therapy
• Outpatient services provided by an ophthalmologist or optometrist
• Eye exams for people with diabetes