4 ms·
implies that I should be concerned about some random sleazeball for raising my healthcare costs, rather than the insurance companies themselves We must have re
by ip26 7y ago
implies that I should be concerned about some random sleazeball for raising my healthcare costs, rather than the insurance companies themselves
We must have read the title differently.
- word-reader 7y agoAh, true. But they had lots of family sources and court records for Williams, and I suppose no spokesperson from the insurance companies wanted to talk, so most of the article is just about him. I wish journalists would develop some more sources inside insurance companies, PBMs, etc. How they operate internally is just like a void that nobody wants to look in to, apparently. Like how do they decide what they'll pay for? Or how do they decide who gets to be part of their network? How long will they let a doctor send in fraudulent claims? There are probably 1000 analysts or programmers inside UHC alone who would happily help answer these.
- rosser 7y agoOr the entire article. Sure, the foreground story is about a serial fraudster, but its substance is the cavalcade of systemic failure to do anything about him, or, by implication, any of the innumerable others like him, bilking the system. If a system shrugs at fraud, what fraud it suffers is substantially that system's fault, IMO. Obviously, mens rea is a thing, but if you're cultivating an environment where bad actors can act badly, you own a heap of that bad. EDIT: Phrasing