4 ms·
>The US government says that private insurers deny 20% of claims. 20% are denied at least once, not 20% are never paid. There's a lot of gray area in what is m
by learc83 6y ago
>The US government says that private insurers deny 20% of claims.
20% are denied at least once, not 20% are never paid. There's a lot of gray area in what is medically necessary, and there's a lot of outright fraud. Plus many claims are denied because someone didn't fill them out correctly, deductibles weren't met, premiums weren't paid etc... The back and forth is part of the process. It's not great but...
> more-or-less but effectively will not cover unexpected large expenses
This is completely unwarranted.
>Your chances that an American health insurance firm will deny your claim, or at least attempt to, are very high. Virtually all of the staff at these firms are dedicated to not paying claims.
Some amount of the 20% denied first time are fraudulent, so assuming you have a legitimate claim, you have a less than 20% of them denying something the first time it's submitted, and a much smaller chance of them refusing to pay eventually.
>Last year my insurer tried to say that it was medically unnecessary to get an MRI after I'd had a tumor removed from my brain. You see, I'd also had an MRI before the surgery and according to the quack on the insurance company payroll who "reviewed my case" more than 1 MRI in a year just can't be justified.
Did they eventually pay? Did your doctor think it was medically necessary, and did you refile?
- jschwartzi 6y agoI fail to see how a system where after a long and arduous battle with an illness spend several months sending letters and making phone calls with my insurance provider because they won't pay the bills for my treatment is better than a system where a single payer simply pays at a set rate for specific treatments. The whole point of the "insurance" system in the US seems to be to make everyone waste several hours a week on top of the time they spend being sick.
- learc83 6y ago> is better than a system where a single payer simply pays at a set rate for specific treatments. It's not. >but effectively will not cover unexpected large expenses That was the claim though, and it's wrong.