Slashdot Mirror
Medical Costs Bankrupt Patients; It's the Computer's Fault
nbauman writes "Don't get cancer until 2015. The Obama health reform is supposed to limit out-of-pocket costs to $12,700. But the Obama Administration has delayed its implementation until 2015. The insurance companies told them that their computers weren't able to add up all their customers' out-of-pocket costs to see whether they had reached the limit. For some common diseases, such as cancer or heart failure, treatment can cost over $100,000, and patients will be responsible for the balance. Tell me, Slashdot, how difficult would it be to rewrite an insurance billing system to aggregate a policyholder's out-of-pocket costs? 'A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said: "We knew this was an important issue. We had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers, which told us that their computer systems were not set up to aggregate all of a person's out-of-pocket costs. They asked for more time to comply."'"
The rollout is being delayed until after the 2014 congressional elections. The problem is political, not technical.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
We knew this was an important issue. We had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers, which told us that their computer systems were not set up to aggregate all of a person's out-of-pocket costs.
So what's on the other side of this "balanced" solution?
It's just another example of bought and paid for politicians sucking the dick of corporations. The famous words "of the people, by the people, for the people" are such a sick joke if you look at the USA government. Coming from a country that covers 100% of such common procedures, I just can't imagine how people can live like that. And Americans still think they have the most superior country in the world. America! Fuck Yeah! Please stop spreading your ideas of freedom to the world and try spreading those ideas at home instead.
Tell me, Slashdot, how difficult would it be to rewrite an insurance billing system to aggregate a policyholder's out-of-pocket costs?
That depends entirely on whether the insurance company wants to remain in business or not. Next question.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Which is what Obama has wanted since day one.
1) Pass a bunch of rules with an unreasonable compliance schedule that no insurance company on Earth could hope to meet
2) Blame insurance companies when the new "free healthcare for all" law fails miserably
3) Use it as an excuse to ram single-payer down everyones' throats
4) Government now has the power to decide who lives and dies, based on political ideology, which is what leftist despots like Obama want.
Having worked firsthand in the medical data field, I'm actually more inclined to believe them. It's pretty easy for a billing system to say "You haven't met your deductible" or "You've paid about enough"... but as I understand it, the legislation requires that each patientis cost be tracked on a per-patient basis - not per-policy or even per-insurer. That means the records have to be combined from every participating hospital, correlated with information from every other insurance provider, and deduplicated accurately, before they can be added.
There are many people with multiple health insurance policies, who go to several healthcare systems, or have incorrect identification data in their records. What's being asked is not simply adding a few numbers in a bill, but rather merging trillions of records with few errors, across hundreds of formats from thousands of providers.
I wish them luck, and I'm glad I'm not in that field any more.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
By what legal authority did Obama delay this implementation?
Do you have ESP?
So what is the opposition party alternative? Repeal.
That will limit the out of pocket costs when? Never.
Plus it will eliminate the various positive effects that the ACA is already having.
Basically the people that are screwing up here are the beneficiaries of the higher out of pocket costs, our Medical Insurance Overlords.
Easy answer on this one from someone who has worked in the insurance industry for a few years... the systems suck.
I am not defining 'suck' from the standpoint of performing because they do what they need to... however they become so bloated with complexities that even minor changes seem daunting. No person or team in my organization knows how the systems work from end-to-end and even the vendors need to use reverse engineering to resolve issues because of the complexities.
Not unusual for an insurance company to build a new system to support new plans because integration of the benefit rules into an existing system is not worth the pain. In the end the company ends up with several systems and IT silos built up around them.
The system at my current work will not be able to handle tracking co-payments over any period of time. The jobs that run overnight to price claims and track this sort of thing are already running at capacity.
On top of all this the executive management in this industry tend to be incredibly conservative and avoid risks like the plague.
Well damn, better go tell Microsoft to stop making Excel... *facedesk*
Go ahead and try to put health data into Excel without violating HIPPAA and going to jail. The same medical procedure can be billed at hundreds of different rates, depending on numerous criteria, many of which are covered by privacy laws, or are calculated by third party labs or testing facilities. If you really think this is easy, then you don't have a clue. There is a reason that we spend 2 trillion a year on health care, and if you compare America's longevity, infant mortality, etc. to other countries, it is pretty obvious that all that money isn't being spent on actual effective medicine. My family doctor's office has one doctor, two nurses, and four people in the billing department.
Businesses exist to maximise profits, all profits, even those derived from delaying compliance activities. It becomes a simple cost benefit case. Is it cheaper to pay some politician's wage and go moan about how hard it is for your one programmer to re-write the software within a timeframe, or is it cheaper to simply hire the right number of people to do the job properly and quickly.
The answer is nearly universally the former. Major companies (not just healthcare) will rather moan about how hard done they are by the government than actually step up to comply with the new regulations. If a large fine is linked with non-compliance they'd have the software modified by the end of the month.
I've seen similar cases in industry too. Companies will replace truly horrendous parts of their plant like-for-like because installing what they want is tied with meeting the new standards of the day rather than the easier standards of when the equipment was originally designed, and thus we have a plant basically half replaced as new with no gear that meets any modern emission standards.
There's simply no motivation to go down the more expensive route.
Step 2 is an immediate response, step 4 is handled in batch processing nightly. So far so good. Except that the Affordable Care Act makes it *illegal* to make a patient pay more than the annual limit. The authorizer and/or the pharmacy can be charged for forcing the patient to pay above the annual limit. This means that the authorizer must be aware of limit of each patient and be able to respond in real-time so that neither they nor the pharmacy will be sued. The insurance company doesn't have that information available real-time, nor do they make it available to the authorizer.
It is a computer issue, but as simple as everyone thinks. Putting individual insurance files on-line so that the out of pocket expenses can be tracked real-time isn't trivial. Now, maybe the Insurance companies were hoping the law wouldn't be implemented so they didn't do the hard work necessary to get set up, or maybe the rules were only written as to how to handle the annual limit must be handled.
Just remember, the last time companies put together a real-time on-line credit/debit system, the government decided that they charged too much to support the infrastructure, and started regulating it. That was the Durbin amendment to Dodd-Frank, which put a fixed limit on per swipe fees - regardless of what the infrastructure and support costs actually are.
jerry
"Software is the difference between hardware and reality"
The USA health care system has some of the worst possible perverse economic disincentives. At literally no point is there a clear economic incentive for you to be healthy and taken care of.
1) Consumers have no interest in keeping costs down. They pay the same deductible no matter what happens. Unfortunately, this is only up to a point (see #4 below) but that's not going to enter casual consideration.
2) Hospitals have no interest in keeping costs down. They blatantly inflate their costs knowing that the insurance companies will only pay a fraction anyway. They also have no incentive to keep supplies costs down since they are paid "cost +" by insurance companies. They'll tend to buy whatever sponge or soap dispenser is in "the catalog".
3) Providers of supplies to hospitals have no interest in keeping their costs down. Hospitals get paid on a "cost +" basis by the insurance companies so charging $35 for that "medical grade" sponge that cost them $0.35 wholesale has 99% profit margins as its incentive.
4) Insurance companies have some incentive to keep costs down, which they generally do by axing their most expensive customers with any of the myriad of technicalities written into their eye-gouging 10 page contracts full of inverted double negatives and exceptions. A good example is somebody with a job who gets cancer. Sure, he/she may have excellent health insurance, but what about when he/she loses his/her job because they didn't show for four months while undergoing chemo therapy? Even so, the myriad of regulations in place (and a legal department that ensures that one plan can't be compared to another) provides an opaque enough service offering that customers are unable to distinguish which plan is actually "cheaper".
5) Doctors had to just about kill their mother to get through medical school, and are saddled with enough debt to make anybody contract stress-related symptoms. Since they get paid for the work they actually perform, they have every incentive to declare a medical emergency and take you under the knife, regardless of whether or not it's necessary or even beneficial. I'm not saying every doctor will give you heart surgery when you come in with a rash, but I'm not alleging something that doesn't happen. Citation 2.
The majority of bankruptcies in the United States are for medical reasons, and the majority of *those* are by people who had health insurance at the time they got sick. Anybody who says this ridiculous would-be-laughable-if-it-wasn't-true system is lying or misinformed.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
My computer isn't set up to pay the bills. It isn't set up to pay the penalties for not paying the bills either. I was too busy programming an interface to my asset protection plan. It's beautiful. You should see it. Rounded corners and everything, and the interest on my overseas accounts is lined up in formatted columns and everything. It doesn't do medical billing outlays though. So sorry. I'm sure you'll understand.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
just do away with insurance companies and switch to single payer. We all need health care to live and stuff. What we don't need is a middle man that adds no value between us and our doctors.
Face it, health 'insurance' made since when the only thing a doctor could do was a) amputate and b) give out aspirin. It didn't matter that they only did a few big things that were mostly comfort before you died. Now we want to _use_ insurance. Insurance can't be profitable if we're all going to use it. The entire _point_ of insurance is that most of us aren't going to use it.
It's like hurricane insurance in Florida. Good luck buying it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I moved to a universal care country. There is no cap. But our health care costs (through taxes and such) to give *everyone* a level of care equal to or better than the US is less than what the US spent to pay for a small percent of people for limited care (Medicare). Universal care is cheaper and better. And yes, if you want to pay cash, you can get whatever you want done without a wait and without going through the system. It's the best of both worlds, and most do that. As good or better than the US system in every way, and cheaper than the "old" US system that was much more limited.
Learn to love Alaska
This is another example of how private health care doesn't work! Coming from Canada and having a few rare / serious medical conditions I just can't understand how anyone can support private healthcare.
they don't get to decide. Doctors do. It's single PAYER, not single INSURER. It doesn't work the way you're thinking in Europe, Canada, Germany or any of the other single payer systems where people are entitled (whoops used a bad word) to health care. The only purpose of the gov't is to pay doctors. And they can be well paid and still provide great service.
:).
But far be it from me to let a little thing like facts and the failures of the US healthcare system get in thy way of irrational fear mongering perpetuated by a multi-billion dollar insurance industry. Viva la death panels (well, the private ones anyway)
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Obamacare is really an attempt to create the sort of socialism that Americans can stomach. I got a good buddy with some serious health problems who relies on gov't health care (got several actually, because if you have a health problem it isn't long until you die or need help from the gov't unless you're an Heir/heiress).
Anyway, I started asking him what he was gonna do. How would he use private insurance. Wouldn't they insurer just keep raising his rates. He said that would be wrong, and so somebody should do something 'bout that. I asked who, and how and he said there should be a law that the insurance companies could only charge so much.
Basically he, like most Americans, deep down want single payer health care. But we're been taught from cradle to grave that socialism is bad. We're indoctrinated. It's called cognitive dissonance. He knows he needs socialism to live. He knows he needs help, and he knows it's his right (as a human) to live. Not just to have some blind dumb chance at good luck, but to actually have a life. But he's been taught, over and over, lied to and lied to. So he breaks down.
Obama recognized that there's lots of people like that. So he's giving them what they need (socialized health care) but doing it in the only way he can. He's letting the devil have it's due, and he's going to give billions and billions to parasitic insurance companies who's only purpose is to make us feel better about getting something that's a basic human right.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Actual payouts due to litigation is around 0.5% of medical spending. The money wasted by Doctors on malpractice insurance is far more, but you'd have to ask them why they agree to pay so much more than the expected cost of settling. I suppose it's a risk management issue - you're extremely unlikely to have a $10M settlement, but if you did you'd be happy to have paid $100K/year for insurance, even though if you averaged the settlements it'd be $5K/year/doctor. That kind of thinking is probably how the insurance companies are making so much money. :-)
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
As a Canadian I have yet to see the very interference of the government into my health. I have never had any government official stop me getting an x-ray, stomp on my doctor when he ordered an ECG, or any of the other numerous tests and prescriptions he has ordered for me.
It's true that there are flaws, but when my wife was diagnoses with a life threatening cancer, no time wastes in diagnostics and in the two surgeries that followed. Better still, I was unemployed by the second surgery and we didn't have to bankrupt ourselves to save her life.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Having had a couple serious problems after moving to a universal health care country from the US, and being familiar with my father's case, where he gave away his family farm to me when he thought he was going to die because he was so far in the hole in health costs, bankruptcy couldn't help him (he had the family farm rented out for living money, about 1/2 poverty level, and there was no form of bankruptcy that would have protected that land while addressing the health debt greater than the value of the farm), I'd take universal health care every time. The time from injury to surgery for my ACL torn in the US was smaller in the US than it would have been under universal care, but it wouldn't have been done in an outpatient clinic with me forcably removed from the property to make room for the next while I was vomiting and non-ambulatory from complications, escorted to the curb to make way for the conveyor belt of the outpatient OR. I could have paid more to get it done in the hospital. Had I know the level of care at the outpatient clinic, I'd have insisted on the hospital. Sure, when you spend millions on every cancer, even when there is only a 1% chance of saving the life of a 60 year old smoker, when the universal care country says "you got plenty old and are still smoking, so we deny your care to use those resources on others who didn't knowingly cause their own problem and have better quality of life after treatment, if successful", it's going to affect the statistics. And every universal health care place I've looked at allows private insurance that will treat you like an insured American in the same situation. The reason why the universal care places still score lower with that is few have insurance. Universal care works great enough of the time, people don't see the need.
Learn to love Alaska
Yeah, ever so much better to let a vastly overpaid CEO make that decision.
Obamacare is a compromise forced by unions and large corporations that want to maintain their tax deductible "cushy" medical plans whilst the rest of the populous get forced into a command-economy style health care industry.
If Obamacare was actually single payer, or socialist, the cushy medical plans couldn't really exist (because the infrastructure that would have supported them meaning the insurance companies and the pay-for-service medical providers would have evaporated) and there would have been no support for it. Regardless if the that is what Obama wanted, his support base wanted to be able to keep their plans, so this is what came out of the backroom deal.
If you want some evidence of this, I suggest you start with the sad fact that congress needed to hastily pass a law to allow their staffers to get a federal subsidy to help pay for getting their insurance through Obamacare since they feared "brain-drain" of people fleeing public service to get better health coverage from the private sector. No, the people in charge of Obamacare don't want the same coverage for everyone, they just want to change the way healthcare is funded for the masses, not the elite.
Tiered coverage often doesn't work with single payer very well, because of economies of scale limit the availability of competition for supplemental insurance resulting in a very have and have-not price points. As an example of this, you can start by looking into the fact that in the US medicare supplemental insurance needs to be subsidized by the government to keep providers in the market. If that seems like an inherently unfair use of government resources to give health benefits to some people over other people, well, you are probably looking at a preview of Obamacare in a few years if they want to keep private insurers in the market as costs rise, but premiums are capped due to political pressure.
On the other hand, if you are a cynic, you probably think that this design was an intentional long-term policy to drive out all insurers so that the system has to convert to single payer. If you want to see some evidence of this, look at what Obamacare is doing to Medicare Advantage programs (alternate Medicare-like insurance provided by private insurers).
back in 1995 I was working for a larGe TElco when my director called me into her office and instructed me to go down to Hartsfield (ATL airport) & pay the walk-up fare to get on the next flight to Raleigh b/c they couldn't process commissions & the SE sales reps were revolting ("you ain't kiddin' - they stink on ice" - sorry, couldn't resist). I immediately knew what problem was (well, 99+%) but felt conflicted so called (then) girlfriend (now wife) and said: "${DIRECTOR} just told me to get on next flight to Raleigh to fix commission processing but I'm 90% sure someone just didn't check ASCII->EBCIDIC when they uploaded the file" (which was prepared in 1-2-3) "I could probably walk them through it over phone in 5 min but it's effectively a free vacation day & I can probably get upgraded" (since I was medallion at time). she told me I should do the right thing & unfortunately I was born with the ethics gene (I probably be worth a lot more w/o it) & just called the desktop support guy in Raleigh who confirmed/fixed in 30 sec.
I just always thought that was funny - they were dead seriously telling me to pay probably $1K & waste a whole day to check an "x" in a dialog (& sadly I was too honest to take them up on it).
Most of those people are idiots looking for a reason to hate Medicare/Medicaid/Any-Service-That-Doesn't-Help-Them.
The truth is that the abusers are a tiny minority, and the amount of money they scam from the system is utterly dwarfed by the amount of money scammed from the government/other-citizens by our national heroes in the finance industry. Suggest policing healthcare programs and you're a responsible citizen fighting corruption. Suggest policing the Fed or investment companies and you're a filthy hippie who hates freedom.
Hey, quit injecting your facts and experience into their wild speculation.