3 ms·

That’s profit, not basic functionality. If they denied claims at the level KP does, the CEO would still be a millionaire but they’d be spending tens of billions

by acdha 2y ago

That’s profit, not basic functionality. If they denied claims at the level KP does, the CEO would still be a millionaire but they’d be spending tens of billions of dollars of the money their customers are paying for healthcare on healthcare instead of diverting it to shareholders. This should be like a regulated utility, not a private equity fund: comfortable living but nobody should be getting wildly rich because they’re taking money away from medical care. The other thing to remember is that people don’t get healthcare for recreational purposes. The American healthcare system delivers quite poor outcomes because so much money is being pulled away by various levels of middlemen. Each layer of people second guessing your doctor, processing claims, negotiating rates, etc. is a lot of professional jobs taking money away from actual medical treatment. If people actually need care, that’s a negative savings they’re simply shifting to society.

nradov 2y ago
Quality of outcomes depends on what metric you look at. In some ways the US healthcare system is excellent, in other ways terrible. For example, the US is at or near the top for 5-year survival rates for most types of cancer. The major factors driving increased morbidity and mortality for Americans are mostly outside the healthcare system. Overeating, trauma, substance abuse, sedentary lifestyles, etc.
- acdha 2y ago
  The U.S. does well but at what cost? For example, if we’re paying considerably more than Brazil but barely edging them out on outcomes it’s not as much of an accomplishment as it sounds: https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/cancer-survival-rates-by-country-1707460013-1 https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/cancer-survival... That’s also a hard comparison because incidence rates are not equal, with age and environmental factors playing a significant role. For example, is a 1% savings worth spending 2-3 times more money versus, say, reducing our fossil fuel usage which will significantly reduce our cancer incidence rates as well as saving billions of dollars?

by acdha 2y ago

nradov 2y ago

Quality of outcomes depends on what metric you look at. In some ways the US healthcare system is excellent, in other ways terrible. For example, the US is at or near the top for 5-year survival rates for most types of cancer. The major factors driving increased morbidity and mortality for Americans are mostly outside the healthcare system. Overeating, trauma, substance abuse, sedentary lifestyles, etc.

acdha 2y ago
The U.S. does well but at what cost? For example, if we’re paying considerably more than Brazil but barely edging them out on outcomes it’s not as much of an accomplishment as it sounds: https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/cancer-survival-rates-by-country-1707460013-1 https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/cancer-survival... That’s also a hard comparison because incidence rates are not equal, with age and environmental factors playing a significant role. For example, is a 1% savings worth spending 2-3 times more money versus, say, reducing our fossil fuel usage which will significantly reduce our cancer incidence rates as well as saving billions of dollars?