|
|
|
|
|
by lotsofpulp
91 days ago
|
|
>So insurance companies spend more so they can collect higher premiums. That's how they make more money. > If this is correct, then how come there are so many complaints about insurance denying payment for healthcare or the hoops they make patients and doctors jump through for pre authorizations? If the path to more profit was spend more money, then there would be no reason to question a doctors’ orders? Nor threaten doctors and hospitals with leaving the network if they don’t agree to lower prices? Yet, one often hears about so and so plan will not have so and so hospital system in network unless they come to an agreement. |
|
Because those anecdotes get reader and viewer engagement. Charts comparing how much U.S. insurers pay on average for common procedures compared to, say, the UK NHS, don’t drive forward the narrative.
You should interrogate the media sources you consume and ask why you’re fed so many stories like that, and investigate what the real data is. A few years ago my friend got a continuous glucose monitor for Type 2 diabetes. I looked at the coverage polices for continuous glucose monitoring (for Type 2) for my insurer and some of the other big ones. Turns out that most US insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid in 45 states+DC cover continuous glucose monitors for people who have type 2 even those that don’t use insulin. At the time, most Canadian provincial systems didn’t cover the technology except for Type 1 or people who take insulin. UK NHS was worse, covering it only for Type 1, or Type 2 with certain conditions (such as you’d otherwise need to do 8 or more pin prick tests a day). https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about-diabetes/looking-after-dia...