Things about health care system that kills you inside.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

AsianPersuasion

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
929
Reaction score
750
It kills me when health insurance refuse to pay for things like diabetes test strips. Took my aunt to pick up her meds today and it cost her $128 for a box of 100 test strips, because the insurance will not pay for it.

...it makes me sad.
 
Nurses Practitioners and PA's takin ARE JERBS!!!!!!11111
 
When someone with a history of 3 heart attacks refuses to spend $280 a month on health insurance because it's "too expensive." They then continue to pile on debt to their $25,000 hospital bill when they absolutely must go.

Seriously, it's not worth any money to you out of pocket to continue to LIVE??

Should we force people to all have some basic form of health coverage?

...why do income taxes come straight out of our paychecks?

That's what I thought.
 
sorry to be a grammar nazi, but .....

Things kill

not

Things kills

👎
 
I'm not going into any specifics but it's just the "air" of fear. Fear of litigation.

People don't go to law school for patients' interest, they go for their own.

People go to medical school for patients' interest.

And yet the lawyers are taking over medicine.
 
i volunteered in the maternity ward of a hospital this year and something that absolutely killllled me was a woman who was on medicaid was pregnant and had a regularly scheduled check up at her obgyn. so one of the benefits for medicaid patients is that they can use the free medicaid transport. she called the transport a few hours before her appointment and they refused to come pick her up because you're supposed to call 3 days in advance. so instead of calling a taxi to take her to her appointment she called 911 and had an ambulence come take her through the emergency room up to the maternity triage. WTF. in my opinion the patient and medicaid both failed in this situation and it is situations like these that are the cause of our astronomical health care debt.
 
It kills me when health insurance refuse to pay for things like diabetes test strips. Took my aunt to pick up her meds today and it cost her $128 for a box of 100 test strips, because the insurance will not pay for it.

...it makes me sad.

This is horrible...I pushes treatment away from the ultimate goal, preventative care. If the strips are not covered and therefore very expensive she will be less likely to test as often as she should. The ADA suggests that there is not limit to how many times you want to test....The more times the better even 10 or 12 times is not unheard of. SO now your Aunt and other diabetics are at a higher risk for diabetes related complications that potentially could have been avoided with a tighter blood glucose control.
 
The horribly inefficient allocation of resources. Nearly incomprehensible amounts of money being spent on futile end of life care, yet PCP's fighting with insurance to be reimburse for preventive care.

That legal concerns need to be considered at least equally with what is best for the patient's health.

This may be a weird one, but from what I've seen and heard from physicians, EMR's are horribly inefficient, and can be much less effective than paper records in acute care settings especially. What could take just a few lines now needs to be found on different pages of the software interface. (Edit -- maybe this is only a problem in ER's in general)
 
Great thread, guys.

I know this one patient who's been in and out of the ICU alone since May 2010! He's spent weeks at a time in the unit. When he's not here, he's upstairs on one of the floors, laying in a bed in some dark corner some where. His whole family seems so tired, especially his wife...she's exhausted. I really hope the doctors pull through for him and get him out. He's barely been out of the hospital. When he has, he comes right back for some new symptoms or the recurrence of old ones. When I first met him, last June, he was in terrible shape. In September, he was actually able to talk and express emotions through language and body language. Now, he's back to square one...lifeless and pale as ever. I hope he can either leave the hospital soon or rest in peace and stop suffering the pain of respirator machines and needle piercings all over his body 🙁.

Sigh, I hope our generation can change some of these issues.
 
Great thread, guys.

I know this one patient who's been in and out of the ICU alone since May 2010! He's spent weeks at a time in the unit. When he's not here, he's upstairs on one of the floors, laying in a bed in some dark corner some where. His whole family seems so tired, especially his wife...she's exhausted. I really hope the doctors pull through for him and get him out. He's barely been out of the hospital. When he has, he comes right back for some new symptoms or the recurrence of old ones. When I first met him, last June, he was in terrible shape. In September, he was actually able to talk and express emotions through language and body language. Now, he's back to square one...lifeless and pale as ever. I hope he can either leave the hospital soon or rest in peace and stop suffering the pain of respirator machines and needle piercings all over his body 🙁.

Sigh, I hope our generation can change some of these issues.

Wut

Say again how this has anything to do with the healthcare system? Do you even know whats wrong with this guy?
 
This is horrible...I pushes treatment away from the ultimate goal, preventative care. If the strips are not covered and therefore very expensive she will be less likely to test as often as she should. The ADA suggests that there is not limit to how many times you want to test....The more times the better even 10 or 12 times is not unheard of. SO now your Aunt and other diabetics are at a higher risk for diabetes related complications that potentially could have been avoided with a tighter blood glucose control.

That's my main concern. The PA ordered her to test 3 times a day....the box will only last her for about 33 days. So each month she has to spend $128 on top of other expenses she has to pay for like lab work and her meds etc.

She recently had foot surgery and the cost for lab work alone for that 10 days period she spent in the hospital cost 20K!!! Just for lab work!

I've been trying to talk with the PA and see if he can give her an alternative meter or any other one that will be covered by the insurance because $1.28 for one strip is really expensive.
 
Nearly incomprehensible amounts of money being spent on futile end of life care

This bothers me the most. I hate how much of healthcare is trying to throw a bunch of money to fix things at the last minute, after someone has spent a lifetime neglecting their health.
 
That's my main concern. The PA ordered her to test 3 times a day....the box will only last her for about 33 days. So each month she has to spend $128 on top of other expenses she has to pay for like lab work and her meds etc.

She recently had foot surgery and the cost for lab work alone for that 10 days period she spent in the hospital cost 20K!!! Just for lab work!

I've been trying to talk with the PA and see if he can give her an alternative meter or any other one that will be covered by the insurance because $1.28 for one strip is really expensive.
I somehow doubt those strips cost that much to produce. Of course they are not cheap for the company to produce them, but still that sounds likes the mark-up on them is insane.

Did the insurance company say why they didn't cover the strips?

Wouldn't it save them money in the long run to pay for the preventative care instead of having to foot the bill for catastrophic care?
 
People who argue that its the health care system's fault that they have to pay for things?

Sure in Europe the government may pay for your aunt's test strips. And you'd more then make up the difference in paying higher taxes.

Repeat after me: Nothing is free.

Though I fully agree with the other poster in that we are seriously misallocating resources towards end of life care instead of primary care.
 
That's actually surprising, most insurances pay for test strips. If she can't find a brand that is covered, she can buy a store-brand machine and strips. A 100 ct box of walgreens strips cost ~$50.
 
Politicians control reimbursement rates.

If the politicians had the brains God gave a turnip the reimbursement rates wouldn't be the sh*tshow that they currently are. But that would be expecting too much.
 
Wouldn't it save them money in the long run to pay for the preventative care instead of having to foot the bill for catastrophic care?

Nope. Because in 5-10 years, when those savings would be realized, it is likely that the aunt will have switched employers (and be on a different insurance) or be eligible for medicare, in which case, the catastrophic care costs fall on someone else.
 
Nope. Because in 5-10 years, when those savings would be realized, it is likely that the aunt will have switched employers (and be on a different insurance) or be eligible for medicare, in which case, the catastrophic care costs fall on someone else.

Cunning on the part of the insurance companies, cruel, but cunning nonetheless.

And by somebody else, I think you mean taxpayers.
 
People who argue that its the health care system's fault that they have to pay for things?

Sure in Europe the government may pay for your aunt's test strips. And you'd more then make up the difference in paying higher taxes.

Repeat after me: Nothing is free.


Though I fully agree with the other poster in that we are seriously misallocating resources towards end of life care instead of primary care.

Exactly.

I think the fundamental problem with end-of-life care is that people don't see the cost because it's simply passed to the insurance company. If people had skin in the game - if they had to pay for 10-20% of the costs, for example - I think they would think twice about keeping their loved one on life support with little or no hope for recovery for weeks at a time. It's unfortunate that that's what it has to come down to, but the country simply can't afford things as they are.
 
Exactly.

I think the fundamental problem with end-of-life care is that people don't see the cost because it's simply passed to the insurance company. If people had skin in the game - if they had to pay for 10-20% of the costs, for example - I think they would think twice about keeping their loved one on life support with little or no hope for recovery for weeks at a time. It's unfortunate that that's what it has to come down to, but the country simply can't afford things as they are.

Not without major reform to the tax code. Even then I am unsure if that would solve the problem. I honestly do not know. My knowledge of economics is limited to a B+ in Intro to Macroeconomics during my first semester of college.
 
Not without major reform to the tax code. Even then I am unsure if that would solve the problem. I honestly do not know. My knowledge of economics is limited to a B+ in Intro to Macroeconomics during my first semester of college.

How is this related to people sharing responsibility for medical costs?
 
To OP, the insurance will probably pay for test strips for a different machine (they all do the same thing). It really depends on the contract the insurance company has. I would try and look into it and see which machine they will cover. In addition, if your aunt is on medicare, test strips might be billed under Medicare B and NOT Medicare Part D, I would have your pharmacist look into that to.

Source: pharmacist/ incoming med student for 2011 😀

Anyways, back to original topic, I want torts reform!!! I think it can significantly reduce the cause of healthcare => increasing access. GG!
 
People who argue that its the health care system's fault that they have to pay for things?

Sure in Europe the government may pay for your aunt's test strips. And you'd more then make up the difference in paying higher taxes.

Repeat after me: Nothing is free.

Though I fully agree with the other poster in that we are seriously misallocating resources towards end of life care instead of primary care.

Never expected or thought anything in life was free.

But just shocked at how expensive it is when she's paying full coverage.

You would think paying for full coverage = insurance company willing to pay, but it's not.
 
How is this related to people sharing responsibility for medical costs?

I was referring to your statement about how the nation can no longer afford things they way they are.

Changing the tax code would be a possibility to increase revenue. By increasing revenue sharing the costs among taxpayers would be easier. It is not preferable, but it is an option we may have to consider.
 
Never expected or thought anything in life was free.

But just shocked at how expensive it is when she's paying full coverage.

You would think paying for full coverage = insurance company willing to pay, but it's not.

Like others have already said, are strips in general not covered by her insurer or just the particular brand she wanted not covered? Sounds like we're not getting the whole story.
 
Like others have already said, are strips in general not covered by her insurer or just the particular brand she wanted not covered? Sounds like we're not getting the whole story.

I don't know TBH. She had Medco before but now BCBS. I've been told to contact the PA myself to find a brand that is covered. She didn't want that particular brand, it was prescribe to her so she took it. With the old insurance they covered part of it.
 
I'm a bit skeptical of the statistic on end of life care. I don't think it tells us much or that we will save any money in trying to do anything about it. 2 reasons why:

1. You never know when a person's last 6 mos will be. I doubt that there are many physicians out there that extend care way past the point that it should be - so efforts to 'cut back' aren't going to be very fruitful because I seriously doubt there are that many situations in which a lot of resources are being expended that shouldn't be.

2. I think this statistic is heavily skewed by acute situations like trauma and serious illness. People are most likely to die when they are seriously ill or injured - and those situations require the most resources to treat.

regarding the rest of this thread ... imo pre-meds are way too young to be complaining about the healthcare system. don't waste time getting all upset about things you probably can't change anyway.
 
Slightly off topic, but how do insurance reimbursements actually work? From what I've read...

1. Patient has insurance with company x and pays premiums on time
2. Patient needs heart surgery
3. Patient goes to the surgeon and gets the surgery, it costs 70k
4. Surgeon bills the insurance company 70k
5. Insurance company, along with the patient's copay, reimburse the surgeon for 70k and everyone lives happily ever after

BUT where/why do problems occur? Do insurance companies start moaning about what they are going to/not going to pay? Do patients not come up with their copay? And can insurance companies dictate what a doctor is allowed to charge in the first place by threatening to not reimburse the doctor?

Also, where do lawyers come into this picture?
 
that some doctors treat you based on insurance.
A relative of mine had medicaid went to the doctor complaining of pain they gave her pain pills and sent her home. A couple of hours later went back to the hospital with the exact same pain and died bc the first doctors didn't perform any test 😡
 
Slightly off topic, but how do insurance reimbursements actually work? From what I've read...

1. Patient has insurance with company x and pays premiums on time
2. Patient needs heart surgery
3. Patient goes to the surgeon and gets the surgery, it costs 70k
4. Surgeon bills the insurance company 70k
5. Insurance company, along with the patient's copay, reimburse the surgeon for 70k and everyone lives happily ever after

BUT where/why do problems occur? Do insurance companies start moaning about what they are going to/not going to pay? Do patients not come up with their copay? And can insurance companies dictate what a doctor is allowed to charge in the first place by threatening to not reimburse the doctor?

Also, where do lawyers come into this picture?
Let's adjust that a bit:
3. It costs $60K. To make a profit, the surgeon and hospital would like to charge $70K.
4. Surgeon bills insurance for $8000. Hospital bills the insurance for $92,000.
5. Insurance pays the surgeon $4000, who then pays his staff/overhead expenses of $2000, and he takes home $2000 (or less). Insurance then pays the hospital $68,000 of the $92,000 that they billed, which isn't all bad, because that still gives the hospital a reasonable profit. Medicare might not have even paid enough to cover all of the expenses.
 
that some doctors treat you based on insurance.
A relative of mine had medicaid went to the doctor complaining of pain they gave her pain pills and sent her home. A couple of hours later went back to the hospital with the exact same pain and died bc the first doctors didn't perform any test 😡
If you don't have insurance and don't pay for the tests, who is going to pay for it? The doctor?

Methinks you're leaving out part of the story.
 
If you don't have insurance and don't pay for the tests, who is going to pay for it? The doctor?

Methinks you're leaving out part of the story.



So then we should let everyone without excellent insurance die? & i thought doctors were supposed to help people silly me
 
The fact that some who can afford to pay for healthcare demand government funds and some who truly can't afford healthcare can't be treated.
 
I think the fundamental problem with end-of-life care is that people don't see the cost because it's simply passed to the insurance company. If people had skin in the game - if they had to pay for 10-20% of the costs, for example - I think they would think twice about keeping their loved one on life support with little or no hope for recovery for weeks at a time.

I think cost-sharing is an important part of the solution but I don't think that it's the most critical component. I think a push by physicians and public health workers to change the cultural relationship towards end-of-life treatment options and discussion thereof would have a far greater impact.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately-- typing this from the room of my grandfather, a physician, who is in the hospice wing and is receiving comfort measures only-- probably < 24h left. This is the case because he, as an informed and medically-knowledgable person, took the time to be very specific about his advance directives and wishes. His wife and children, most of whom are in the field, respect his wishes and have frank and frequent discussions about what's going on with his management, and have similar conversations with his PCP who comes in to check on him and coordinates with the doc overseeing his care in this wing.

There's probably some people who will grasp at straws in the end, but I think they're the minority. Given informed choices about what happens at the end of their lives (and also realistic prognoses when available-- read some pretty alarming statistics regarding this in Peter Singer's book on end-of-life ethics) , I think a lot of people would choose hospice-type care and save the system a whole lotta money.
 
The state of most nursing homes. I would never want to send someone I love to a majority of them.
 
Ultimately the real issue is that healthcare is really expensive. And I'm not talking about inflated costs from inefficient delivery systems, "greedy hospitals/doctors/insurance bureaucrats", and all the other problems so frequently brought up. These issues, while important, are largely sideshows. Sure we can always improve the system and minimize those factors, but it will only put a tiny dent in problem. Focusing all our energy on those relatively trivial issues is dangerous because we end up neglecting the address the facts.

Healthcare is expensive. It has to be if it's going to be any good. It starts with the armies of researchers--clinical, scientific, pharmaceutical, etc.--that dedicate their careers to improving our knowledge of human biology. Every single one of these people needs to be compensated for their expertise and efforts. If they aren't, then nobody will go into research and the advance of medicine will halt.

Then there is a long road still from initial research findings to actually producing something useful. For every drug or procedure or instrument that eventually reaches market, many do not. The incredible amounts of labor that go into this effort require a lot of compensation. People still have to get paid for their years of hard work, even if their product, which was initially based on a sound theory, ultimately fails. Otherwise the industry would stall. This is why it is very misleading to say "it only costs 5 cents to make this pill, yet its marked up to $1.50. That's outrageous!! Criminal!"

And so far we've only touched the technology. There is still the physical facilities, many of which must be operational and fully staffed 24/7. And the staff aren't McDonald's minimum wage type workers either. Nurses, techs, security, social workers, etc. all have specialized training and aren't going to work for unattractive salaries. Even if nobody checks into the ER or is admitted to the hospital all night long, every single one of these people still has to get paid for sticking around just in case. The same thing goes for the doctors, except their specialized training is through the roof and they are also entitled to a pay that represents that level of sacrifice/expertise. As mentioned, they still have all their overhead that adds to the cost as well. Plus places like the ER are financial black holes and other departments, like labs and radiology, have to make up the difference for the hospital to break even.

My point is that the cost of healthcare isn't the biggest fish to fry. It's an issue, and can be brought down a little, but the same underlying problems will still exist after you do. The costs are generally fair (yes, that's right) and accurately represent the resources, time, and skill that goes into producing it.

The problem is that very few people can afford the costs associated with the care they would like to consume (that some even consider it their "right" to consume). Behold, the advent of health insurance. Once upon a time people actually thought of health insurance as insurance. When this is the case everything works fine. You still pay your yearly routine costs (deductible) but also contribute to a pool for the unlucky ones who get really hurt/sick (premiums).

But then people started expecting something for nothing. And politicians started demonizing anybody and everybody if it would win them votes. And as a society we let our welfare state grow to an unprecedented size, thus shifting more and more of the costs to the people who work hard and actually contribute something.

Of course nobody with a serious medical condition should go untreated because they can't pay. But at the same time people are going to have to start taking more responsibility for their actions and for what they consume. The ultimate problem is that many in our society are unwilling to do this voluntarily. We need to spend more time and effort addressing this, and the trivialities we are currently obsessed with will work themselves out.
 
I hate that healthcare is a predominantly for-profit system.

Are you kidding? If it wasn't "for profit" then the best and the brightest wouldn't put their time and energy into making superior technologies and drugs and treatments. The fact that healthcare is a good industry to make money in is its saving grace.
 
Are you kidding? If it wasn't "for profit" then the best and the brightest wouldn't put their time and energy into making superior technologies and drugs and treatments.

I wouldn't know about "superior." Profit is generally maximized by making a product that's "good enough."

Anyway, you can have health care systems that aren't driven by profit but still allow for-profit actors. Medical device manufacturers are for-profit organizations, but they still play in not-for-profit spaces.
 
This is the case because he, as an informed and medically-knowledgable person, took the time to be very specific about his advance directives and wishes. His wife and children, most of whom are in the field, respect his wishes and have frank and frequent discussions about what's going on with his management, and have similar conversations with his PCP who comes in to check on him and coordinates with the doc overseeing his care in this wing.

Given informed choices about what happens at the end of their lives (and also realistic prognoses when available-- read some pretty alarming statistics regarding this in Peter Singer's book on end-of-life ethics) , I think a lot of people would choose hospice-type care and save the system a whole lotta money.

Whoa whoa whoa do you mean he's had to consult a DEATH PANEL??
 
Are you kidding? If it wasn't "for profit" then the best and the brightest wouldn't put their time and energy into making superior technologies and drugs and treatments. The fact that healthcare is a good industry to make money in is its saving grace.


This. Unfortunately as obvious as it sounds, greed drives the whole shabang. Without competition between pharm companies for instance, we wouldn't have more efficient drugs/technology in the first place. More competition = more $$$.
 
This. Unfortunately as obvious as it sounds, greed drives the whole shabang. Without competition between pharm companies for instance, we wouldn't have more efficient drugs/technology in the first place. More competition = more $$$.

For a drug companies at least, a lot of what goes in to pricing has to do with recouping the cost of drug development. The cost to bring a successful drug to market is generally several hundred million dollars - in fact, many recent drugs have had development costs that exceeded 1 billion dollars. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2630351/)

Not only that, you have to consider that for every drug that a company successfully develops, you have several other drugs that were shelved after the company invested several hundred million dollars in R&D, clinical trials, etc. So in addition to cost for developing a particular drug, companies must price new drugs in manner that will allow them to recoup their investment on failed drugs.
 
Ultimately the real issue is that healthcare is really expensive. And I'm not talking about inflated costs from inefficient delivery systems, "greedy hospitals/doctors/insurance bureaucrats", and all the other problems so frequently brought up. These issues, while important, are largely sideshows. Sure we can always improve the system and minimize those factors, but it will only put a tiny dent in problem. Focusing all our energy on those relatively trivial issues is dangerous because we end up neglecting the address the facts.

Healthcare is expensive. It has to be if it's going to be any good. It starts with the armies of researchers--clinical, scientific, pharmaceutical, etc.--that dedicate their careers to improving our knowledge of human biology. Every single one of these people needs to be compensated for their expertise and efforts. If they aren't, then nobody will go into research and the advance of medicine will halt.

Then there is a long road still from initial research findings to actually producing something useful. For every drug or procedure or instrument that eventually reaches market, many do not. The incredible amounts of labor that go into this effort require a lot of compensation. People still have to get paid for their years of hard work, even if their product, which was initially based on a sound theory, ultimately fails. Otherwise the industry would stall. This is why it is very misleading to say "it only costs 5 cents to make this pill, yet its marked up to $1.50. That's outrageous!! Criminal!"

And so far we've only touched the technology. There is still the physical facilities, many of which must be operational and fully staffed 24/7. And the staff aren't McDonald's minimum wage type workers either. Nurses, techs, security, social workers, etc. all have specialized training and aren't going to work for unattractive salaries. Even if nobody checks into the ER or is admitted to the hospital all night long, every single one of these people still has to get paid for sticking around just in case. The same thing goes for the doctors, except their specialized training is through the roof and they are also entitled to a pay that represents that level of sacrifice/expertise. As mentioned, they still have all their overhead that adds to the cost as well. Plus places like the ER are financial black holes and other departments, like labs and radiology, have to make up the difference for the hospital to break even.

My point is that the cost of healthcare isn't the biggest fish to fry. It's an issue, and can be brought down a little, but the same underlying problems will still exist after you do. The costs are generally fair (yes, that's right) and accurately represent the resources, time, and skill that goes into producing it.

The problem is that very few people can afford the costs associated with the care they would like to consume (that some even consider it their "right" to consume). Behold, the advent of health insurance. Once upon a time people actually thought of health insurance as insurance. When this is the case everything works fine. You still pay your yearly routine costs (deductible) but also contribute to a pool for the unlucky ones who get really hurt/sick (premiums).

But then people started expecting something for nothing. And politicians started demonizing anybody and everybody if it would win them votes. And as a society we let our welfare state grow to an unprecedented size, thus shifting more and more of the costs to the people who work hard and actually contribute something.

Of course nobody with a serious medical condition should go untreated because they can't pay. But at the same time people are going to have to start taking more responsibility for their actions and for what they consume. The ultimate problem is that many in our society are unwilling to do this voluntarily. We need to spend more time and effort addressing this, and the trivialities we are currently obsessed with will work themselves out.

+1 👍 A logical, concise comment based in reality rather than the utopian drivel being spouted far too often today.
 
Top