3 ms·

Well, we were told this is impossible, so either everyone involved lied to us or your experience isn't universal. While insurance tied to your employer sucks,

Well, we were told this is impossible, so either everyone involved lied to us or your experience isn't universal. While insurance tied to your employer sucks, I think the best thing to do here is for the law to iron out the data interchange between MCOs. In a "marketplace" like the US, insurers must be under a dire legal obligation to transfer your data in a comprehensive and timely fashion to whoever is currently administering payment for your care. Especially when lifesaving medication is involved. The patient should not be held hostage by the incompetence of MCOs at communicating medical data.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> , there is the question of why someone with Type 1 Diabetes is being denied their medicine. I feel like the only potentially valid excuse would be if the insurer literally didn't know the person had Type 1 Diabetes. I forgot to respond to this in your prior reply. The answer here is because insulin is not just insulin. There are many different formulations and brands with many different prices. Even the federal government does not want to pay for all of them: https://www.healthline.com/diabetesmine/new-medicare-program-caps-insulin-prices-at-35 https://www.healthline.com/diabetesmine/new-medicare-program... So one could say it is about money, or how much extra money is politically available to spend for the marginal benefit (population wise) of certain insulin.
- civilized 5y ago
  If the problem is around different insurers paying for different brands, then yes, I think the solution is for the consumer to have the choice of MCO rather than it being tied to the employer. But I'm sure this would create other problems and snarl the system with even more complexity. That's ignoring the fundamental cosmic absurdity of this entire system, with its pretense to be some kind of competitive private market with the usual benefits of such. When in reality, insurers are just a bunch of hogs at the trough that you're shuffled between as you change employers. The private market does not seem to create any sort of incentive for efficiency or a better consumer experience.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    The hogs at the trough have net profit margins of 5% or less, and pay out 85%+ of premiums they collect to healthcare providers. You can remove MCOs from the equation, and their function will still have to be done by whoever is paying. For example, the approving/denying is still done in the UK even though they have taxpayer funded healthcare. Or even within the Kaiser health system in the US. It does make life easier for providers and patients when there is one system that provides quick definitive answers rather than back and forth. On that front, there is much improvement to be made in electronic communications between healthcare providers and MCOs. On a positive note, this is happening via electronic prescriptions and integrated EMRs. I have seen my kids’ doctor pull up covered medications in their system and then quickly sending the electronic prescription to the pharmacy. > But I'm sure this would create other problems and snarl the system with even more complexity. There is absolutely no reason for employers to be involved in your healthcare. They currently are able to use it as a leash around your neck because paying for MCOs via your employer means you get to purchase with pre tax dollars. Paying yourself means you have to pay with post tax dollars. I am looking at my box 12 code DD total, and for me that is $32k of insurance premiums I was able to pay with pre tax dollars. More importantly, it gives employees an additional hurdle and fear of changing employers, because what if they have to go through what the person who wrote this article did? Maybe they should not shop around to see if they can sell their labor at a higher price, and just stick to their current employer. Another unnecessary chip for employers to have over employees in the US.
    - civilized 5y ago
      > More importantly, it gives employees an additional hurdle and fear of changing employers, because what if they have to go through what the person who wrote this article did? Maybe they should not shop around to see if they can sell their labor at a higher price, and just stick to their current employer. Another unnecessary chip for employers to have over employees in the US. This is horrifying to contemplate... do employers just love that chip so much that they see it as worth all the terrible customer experience and inefficiency it causes? Do they lobby to keep it this way?

lotsofpulp 5y ago

> , there is the question of why someone with Type 1 Diabetes is being denied their medicine. I feel like the only potentially valid excuse would be if the insurer literally didn't know the person had Type 1 Diabetes. I forgot to respond to this in your prior reply. The answer here is because insulin is not just insulin. There are many different formulations and brands with many different prices. Even the federal government does not want to pay for all of them: https://www.healthline.com/diabetesmine/new-medicare-program-caps-insulin-prices-at-35 https://www.healthline.com/diabetesmine/new-medicare-program... So one could say it is about money, or how much extra money is politically available to spend for the marginal benefit (population wise) of certain insulin.

civilized 5y ago
If the problem is around different insurers paying for different brands, then yes, I think the solution is for the consumer to have the choice of MCO rather than it being tied to the employer. But I'm sure this would create other problems and snarl the system with even more complexity. That's ignoring the fundamental cosmic absurdity of this entire system, with its pretense to be some kind of competitive private market with the usual benefits of such. When in reality, insurers are just a bunch of hogs at the trough that you're shuffled between as you change employers. The private market does not seem to create any sort of incentive for efficiency or a better consumer experience.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The hogs at the trough have net profit margins of 5% or less, and pay out 85%+ of premiums they collect to healthcare providers. You can remove MCOs from the equation, and their function will still have to be done by whoever is paying. For example, the approving/denying is still done in the UK even though they have taxpayer funded healthcare. Or even within the Kaiser health system in the US. It does make life easier for providers and patients when there is one system that provides quick definitive answers rather than back and forth. On that front, there is much improvement to be made in electronic communications between healthcare providers and MCOs. On a positive note, this is happening via electronic prescriptions and integrated EMRs. I have seen my kids’ doctor pull up covered medications in their system and then quickly sending the electronic prescription to the pharmacy. > But I'm sure this would create other problems and snarl the system with even more complexity. There is absolutely no reason for employers to be involved in your healthcare. They currently are able to use it as a leash around your neck because paying for MCOs via your employer means you get to purchase with pre tax dollars. Paying yourself means you have to pay with post tax dollars. I am looking at my box 12 code DD total, and for me that is $32k of insurance premiums I was able to pay with pre tax dollars. More importantly, it gives employees an additional hurdle and fear of changing employers, because what if they have to go through what the person who wrote this article did? Maybe they should not shop around to see if they can sell their labor at a higher price, and just stick to their current employer. Another unnecessary chip for employers to have over employees in the US.
  - civilized 5y ago
    > More importantly, it gives employees an additional hurdle and fear of changing employers, because what if they have to go through what the person who wrote this article did? Maybe they should not shop around to see if they can sell their labor at a higher price, and just stick to their current employer. Another unnecessary chip for employers to have over employees in the US. This is horrifying to contemplate... do employers just love that chip so much that they see it as worth all the terrible customer experience and inefficiency it causes? Do they lobby to keep it this way?