4 ms·

Personally I picked KP purely because I had no interest in playing middleman between my doctor and insurance company. The US healthcare market is a complete cl

Personally I picked KP purely because I had no interest in playing middleman between my doctor and insurance company. The US healthcare market is a complete clusterfuck. Other countries get comparable outcomes from universal healthcare for about the same outlay as we already spend on public healthcare.

fakedang 4y ago
I've wondered about this. KP and Geisinger are the closest things I've seen in the US to European-style private healthcare, albeit more vertically integrated, yet why isn't it so popular in the US?
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  KP has a reputation for rationing care and more bureaucracy when seeking specialists compared to other insurance. It is a good value, and works well for those who 1) aren't particularly involved in directing their own care or 2) are extremely aggressive in asserting themselves. People in the middle get frustrated.
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > KP and Geisinger are the closest things I've seen in the US to European-style private healthcare, albeit more vertically integrated, yet why isn't it so popular in the US? Kaiser has a reputation for being incredibly inflexible and rationing care to a degree that makes it a non-starter for anyone who has any healthcare needs beyond routine care (assuming they have an alternative to choose from). They have incredibly restrictive network rules, and they make it much harder to access non-routine care (additional hoops to jump through, etc). It's a very frustrating experience unless your care needs happen to align exactly with what their actuaries have determined is optimal. This is not really surprising - it's exactly what you'd expect would happen when an insurer is directly responsible for clinical care (as much as integrated capitated healthcare systems pretend otherwise by using different terms to describe themselves, at the end of the day, that's exactly what they are: medical practices run by health insurance companies).
- msrenee 4y ago
  Because you don't get to choose your insurance provider in the US. Your employer does that.
evolve7942 4y ago
I’d be wary of this decision since now you’ve elected to just work with the insurance salesperson, whose goal is to spend as little as possible on you. Providers at KP regularly tell you to “advocate for yourself” because now the doctors are beholden to the insurers. The regulatory agencies allow KP to self-police their quality metrics, so oversight is limited. As a KP member you waive your right to sue them for malpractice and have to engage in a KP designed arbitration process. If you’re in California there’s a limit on malpractice damages ($350k no death / $500k death) so chances are no lawyer will take a case against them unless it’s extremely clear cut and won’t require any domain experts ($$$). KP may officially be a non-profit, but their CEO rakes in millions and their physician group is a separate for-profit entity. There are some providers that make heroic efforts to provide quality care, but the overall culture seems to be very bureaucratic and big-co checkbox exercises.

fakedang 4y ago

I've wondered about this. KP and Geisinger are the closest things I've seen in the US to European-style private healthcare, albeit more vertically integrated, yet why isn't it so popular in the US?

s1artibartfast 4y ago
KP has a reputation for rationing care and more bureaucracy when seeking specialists compared to other insurance. It is a good value, and works well for those who 1) aren't particularly involved in directing their own care or 2) are extremely aggressive in asserting themselves. People in the middle get frustrated.
chimeracoder 4y ago
> KP and Geisinger are the closest things I've seen in the US to European-style private healthcare, albeit more vertically integrated, yet why isn't it so popular in the US? Kaiser has a reputation for being incredibly inflexible and rationing care to a degree that makes it a non-starter for anyone who has any healthcare needs beyond routine care (assuming they have an alternative to choose from). They have incredibly restrictive network rules, and they make it much harder to access non-routine care (additional hoops to jump through, etc). It's a very frustrating experience unless your care needs happen to align exactly with what their actuaries have determined is optimal. This is not really surprising - it's exactly what you'd expect would happen when an insurer is directly responsible for clinical care (as much as integrated capitated healthcare systems pretend otherwise by using different terms to describe themselves, at the end of the day, that's exactly what they are: medical practices run by health insurance companies).
msrenee 4y ago
Because you don't get to choose your insurance provider in the US. Your employer does that.

evolve7942 4y ago

I’d be wary of this decision since now you’ve elected to just work with the insurance salesperson, whose goal is to spend as little as possible on you. Providers at KP regularly tell you to “advocate for yourself” because now the doctors are beholden to the insurers. The regulatory agencies allow KP to self-police their quality metrics, so oversight is limited. As a KP member you waive your right to sue them for malpractice and have to engage in a KP designed arbitration process. If you’re in California there’s a limit on malpractice damages ($350k no death / $500k death) so chances are no lawyer will take a case against them unless it’s extremely clear cut and won’t require any domain experts ($$$). KP may officially be a non-profit, but their CEO rakes in millions and their physician group is a separate for-profit entity. There are some providers that make heroic efforts to provide quality care, but the overall culture seems to be very bureaucratic and big-co checkbox exercises.