TLDR: The insurance company has a new policy, set to take effect in February 2025, where they decide how much anesthesia is needed for surgeries. They won’t pay for any anesthesia over that, with exemptions for maternity and pediatric cases and for Connecticut providers.

The article also notes the insurance company reported a $2.3 billion net income increase in June 2024.

Edit to update: Anthem now says they won’t put this policy into effect

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    33
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    So, at the absolute most charitable interpretation, this punishes patients for having a slow surgical staff or for a surgery having complications. Like most insurance things, punishing the patient for shit completely outside of their control.

    On top of this, best outcome of this (for doctors to try and ensure their patients don’t need to decide between potential financial ruin or surgery) would be for all surgical departments to wildly inflate their surgery times so they can’t ever be over estimate. This will significantly reduce the amount of surgeries able to be completed per day, and hike up the price even more as they have to bill for more time.

    The only possible justification for this is attempting to find another place to lower financial costs to the insurance company at any “cost”. I miss when these people had enough shame to not go this mask off.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      287 months ago

      This actually sets a time limit for anesthesia regardless of procedure or estimated time from the doctors.
      It’s entirely up to the insurance company to set an arbitrary time with which they think medical care should be provided within and deny past.

      It’s nothing but appalling cruelness for the sake of it, and a few extra dollars for a CEO and board of Directors that deserve the opposite of health care.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        677 months ago

        https://www.change.org/

        Was thinking about it. Even if it’s not taken seriously and even if it never gets Joe Biden signature, this would be a real good way to send a message to the nation. Just how many people the absolute number of people who are angry to the point of letting people kill CEO’s Because of injustice and inequality.

    • The Pantser
      link
      fedilink
      English
      537 months ago

      He would have to be known. I would rather the guy stay anon so his life isn’t ruined. He can live the rest of his life without the fear of corpo vengeance. Also he probably would never be able to be insured again lol. Either that or he’s terminal and his care was denied so he had nothing to lose.

      • Jo Miran
        link
        fedilink
        English
        517 months ago

        I got diagnosed with stage 3 cancer in 2022 (cured now). I can totally see how someone could go full The Punisher on healthcare execs if their life-saving treatment was denied. The problem isn’t facing your own mortality, that doesn’t take long to process. What is an impossible pill to swallow is the thought of leaving your loved ones drowned in an avalanche of medical debt and possible financial ruin. Fuck that.

        Deny
        Depose
        Defend

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    287 months ago

    Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield said in a statement that its decision to backpedal resulted from “significant widespread misinformation” about the policy.

    Ah, yes, if people complain about being mistreated, it is always “Our plan was misunderstood”, or “The critique is based on misinformation”…

  • Optional
    link
    fedilink
    English
    627 months ago

    Well I certainly hope we don’t need to see someone step in to explain to the company how wrong this is.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      817 months ago

      “One of the reasons that she has remained so active in this particular field is because she has seen what it does to people when they can’t get insurance to cover the healthcare they need."

      Sadists.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        257 months ago

        “One of the reasons that she has remained so active in this particular field is because she has seen what it does to people when they can’t get insurance to cover the healthcare they need."

        FTFY. It makes the people desperate enough to buy her product.

    • raoul
      link
      fedilink
      English
      227 months ago

      "One of the reasons that she has remained so active in this particular field is because she has seen what it does to people when they can’t get insurance to cover the healthcare they need,” Money Inc. wrote.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    397 months ago

    The fact that there aren’t riots in the US demanding universal care simply baffles me.

  • Waldowal
    link
    fedilink
    English
    287 months ago

    That’s right. Rush the surgeons. That will end well.

  • HubertManne
    link
    fedilink
    277 months ago

    How did they figure out the amount because the different people have different tolerances. My brother had a surgery that had not started and they were like. Your still awake. When meeting with the anethsiaologist before surgery he has to mention he may need a bit more than normal plus I believe there is a weight thing. Is the amount allowed assuming a worst case longest surgery with person who requires the most anesthia to six sigma of the population.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        27 months ago

        I remember some jokes around it being about cell receptiveness. Like their receptors don’t react to taking pigment the same way they don’t react to the anesthesia as well. If so, it would likely be a genetic trait, so the more natural red heads that have extremely low pigment may require more anesthesia to keep them under. But I’m no doctor, and most of those jokes had to do with their soul not being around to pick up the call 🤷.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    16
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Noticed the Connecticut exemption, must be a law there. I’ll take “laws you wouldn’t think could be necessary” for $400, Alex. Guess we better get California working on that as well.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      137 months ago

      You’d be surprised how many of them there are. Massachusetts has a law that requires insurance companies to cover transgender care, including both HRT and surgeries, because insurance wouldn’t cover any of them otherwise. Trans related surgeries are classified as “cosmetic” and therefore not necessary or life-saving according to insurance companies, despite the mountain of studies saying how important they can be for people’s quality of life.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        97 months ago

        Good for MA. Hoping it doesn’t become moot because of a national ban on trans care. Bullies always start with the most vulnerable.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      45
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      From January 2011 to November 2014, she served as the chief executive officer of UnitedHealthcare

      Small world, when you move in those circles. Imagine how these people convince themselves they’re doing something good and admirable.