You'd think UHC would strive to behave impeccably with all the publicity around them lately. But no: they're so shameless and so greedy they even behave rotten when everybody is busy dissecting their every moves. Amazing...
If that were the case, they'd have off'd the CEO themselves. That's multi-millions that could go back to other higher-ups. Then we have a Highlander situation.
Because doing otherwise wouldn't maximize profits. There's no actual competition in the market for consumers to choose. Nearly all Americans get insurance through their work, and have absolutely no say in what companies those options are from, and those options might only change at the end of the year if the company changes their insurance partner (which I'm sure takes months to negotiate). UHC has no reason to change unless they are forced to. Customer Satisfaction in the industry is abysmal because there's no incentive for the companies to actually be good.
They had their underwriters run the numbers and they determined it's more profitable to continue business as usual and just invest in private security for executives.
Of course they wouldn't try to behave well. Remember that the bosses in this organization are all incredibly selfish. They are rich, they want to get richer, and f*** everybody else. Although the company itself might benefit from a positive PR campaign, none of these people individually would, so they're not going to push for one.
It's a strange kind of honesty about bad behavior. Everyone is so selfish that they can't even pretend as an organization that they would like to do the right thing.
In Corey Doctorow's short story (Radicalized, in the collection Radicalized) the health fund attackers typically used explosives against the entire board and their support staff
The simplest explanation is they literally can't change, they've built this level of callousness into their DNA. It's useful confirmation that for-profit health insurance is beyond saving.
What incentivize do they have? The vast majority of their customers have no choice but to be their customers. They just need to keep the companies that companies contract with to set up benefits happy. That's a very small pool and most aren't customers of theirs. And especially with the anti-regulation party coming into power, there's no reason to fear government intervention. But even before that, it wasnt really a threat.
Proof that Luigi was right! 2025 is the year we the people start denying their existence. Medicare for all and the doctors that get paid the most do so by having healthy patients. No more pill popping to keep making these insurers rich!
Given who is about to be sworn into office, I'm not sure too much progress will happen, but people will certainly get an idea of how much they're getting fucked.
I think they probably count on the Edward Snowden effect - i.e. people are massively outraged for a few weeks, then they lose interest, move on to the next hot topic and nothing changes.
Brian Thompson didn't learn shit he's dead. And I doubt that Stephen J. Hemsley, the Executive Chairman of UnitedHealth Group and Brian Thompson's co-defendent in an insider trading lawsuit, likely didn't learn squat either but is currently still alive.
Bob actually tried to milk the insurance companies for money, IIRC. He wasn't entirely a monster, but definitely had no chill.
Dr. Bob Kelso: What the hell people? I saw Maggie Kent in the park. Why didn't we treat her?
Nurse Carla Espinosa: She has no insurance.
Dr. Bob Kelso: Well, why didn't we do what we always do? Why didn't you fix it while I turned my back and pretend not to notice? You know the dance.
he definitely mellowed out as the series went on though in the first episode he did come up with
Dr. Dorian, do you not realize that you're nothing but a large pair of scrubs to me? For God's sake, the only reason I carry this chart around is so I can pretend to remember your damn names! Now look, if the patient has insurance, you treat them; if they don't, you show them the door.
He just wanted the people who were getting treatment to have insurance so the hospital can get paid.
In this context, I'm sure if someone was denied coverage, his attitude on it would be the same as his attitude on people who are not insured.
AFAIK he would have had no say on whether someone was denied coverage. He did however, have a say on whether they were denied care.
His professional attitude about that was "show them the door" but that policy was rarely ever actually enforced, and the few times it was, he complained that everyone did what he was telling them to.
HIPAA can be violated without giving a name, if certain details are disclosed; eg the only 6 year old in the state with rickettsiapox who was admitted on December 21.
You can kill an infinite number of people across all of time, but it's not going to change the fact that profit exists to be made. The only solution is legislative. We have to vote DNC, like we did in 2010, but instead of stopping at 58 we need to get to 60. Only then will there be progressive reform with no compromise.
At the risk of you all putting a literal hit out on me, I'm going to proclaim the hot take that this is not the best example of insurance company abuse. I am in complete agreement that insurance greed and frankly insurance company power over the entire US Healthcare system is way out of balance. I argue the walls need to come down and things need to be rebuilt in aore socialized model. But as far as refusing claims go, be it socialized or the insurance Co mess we have now, Healthcare resources are inevitably limited. Someone with a brain hemorrhage, in a coma, ventilated, in heart failure is going to be massively expensive to support and will have a low likelihood of functional outcome. Rather than denying dozens of chemotherapy meds, or MRIs for suspected brain lesions, I could see the ugly job of denying this claim as justifiable.
That's nitpicking. Is it medically necessary to support someone in a coma that likely won't have a good outcome? It's always about the money with insurance. That has to be assumed.
I agree with the insurance company too and most doctors would. I'm not sure who this doctor is but most people in healthcare industry that actually work ICU will agree. I also challenge commenters here to speak to your (hospital) healthcare friends about it too, especially if they work ICU.
ICU beds are very limited and honestly not designed to house pts who are intubated or comatose indefinitely. They are designed to be short term with active treatment. Otherwise, if they need to live somewhere as a comatose pt, they need to go to a subacute facility, forever on a vent. That's the real reason why United Healthcare denied. "Not medically necessary" ('for hospitals' is what they left out).
If hospitals kept every uninduced comatose pt, they wouldn't be able to treat anyone else (think stroke, cardiac, trauma, severe pulmonary, etc). Pts with TBI for example, 50% will never have consciousness returned and just have to live in this vegetative state. . Not only that but hospital staff isn't trained to provide long term care. They aren't educated or specialized in doing so. Some hospitals only have let's say 20 ICU beds. Larger ones maybe 40. But even without people living in them, they are near 100% capacity every day.
Subacute facilities are also really difficult. They have trouble staying afloat because the care they provide is so expensive and most are reimbursed at a loss (Medi-Cal).
Theres lots of things wrong with the healthcare system but like this poster said, its not a good example. There are honestly literally millions of other examples that are absolutely egregious.
Y’all are making a lot of assumptions about this person’s life, as if you yourself were on the death panel. Maybe it’s, true, maybe it’s not, but the doctor knows more about the case and the patients prognosis than any of us
This doctor is someone who knows a hell of a lot more about the situation than you do or the friends that I might ask that are in healthcare. Maybe, just maybe, he knows some information where it makes sense to continue treatment. You seem to be under the assumption that he did not share that information with the insurance.