3 ms·

Psychiatrists / neurologists do the diagnosis. I'm not sure about a financial incentive, or at least in Kaiser's case. It would mean they'd have to cover that p

Psychiatrists / neurologists do the diagnosis. I'm not sure about a financial incentive, or at least in Kaiser's case. It would mean they'd have to cover that person's therapy possibly indefinitely which isn't much of an incentive. They're more incentivized to not diagnose with a condition. I was considered not bi-polar and do not have ADHD by a psychiatrist and thus I couldn't get therapy covered.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
There’s an even deeper problem, which is that insurance as a system simply doesn’t make sense for things that are not rare or that affect a sizable fraction of population If it’s that common, then there’s no need for a large bureaucracy of actuaries, accountants, agents, etc…, in the middle or to serve as your intermediaries. And a single paperwork error every five years, causing you to spend a few hours sorting it out, would more than outweigh all the tiny advantages that might theoretically benefit the customer.
- jeremywho 2y ago
  This has been my view for a while. Basically health-care != health-insurance. People I've talked to can't quite to wrap their heads around that idea. Not sure why.
- margalabargala 2y ago
  > might theoretically benefit the customer. As with any for-profit business, benefit to the customer is not a goal in and of itself, but rather an incidental side-effect of obtaining money from the customer, in that it is how the customer is convinced to give up their money. I would caution against assuming systems such as what you described are intended to help the customer. It sounds like instead, it is intended to help the company, by causing you to have to spend your (not their) time and potentially miss an appointment, saving the insurance company money. After all, what are you going to do, leave your employer for another one with a different insurance company over an insurance paperwork headache?

MichaelZuo 2y ago

There’s an even deeper problem, which is that insurance as a system simply doesn’t make sense for things that are not rare or that affect a sizable fraction of population If it’s that common, then there’s no need for a large bureaucracy of actuaries, accountants, agents, etc…, in the middle or to serve as your intermediaries. And a single paperwork error every five years, causing you to spend a few hours sorting it out, would more than outweigh all the tiny advantages that might theoretically benefit the customer.

jeremywho 2y ago
This has been my view for a while. Basically health-care != health-insurance. People I've talked to can't quite to wrap their heads around that idea. Not sure why.
margalabargala 2y ago
> might theoretically benefit the customer. As with any for-profit business, benefit to the customer is not a goal in and of itself, but rather an incidental side-effect of obtaining money from the customer, in that it is how the customer is convinced to give up their money. I would caution against assuming systems such as what you described are intended to help the customer. It sounds like instead, it is intended to help the company, by causing you to have to spend your (not their) time and potentially miss an appointment, saving the insurance company money. After all, what are you going to do, leave your employer for another one with a different insurance company over an insurance paperwork headache?