United Healthcare denies claim of woman in coma
The patient's doctor criticized the insurance company, saying that the treatment was necessary to prevent her from dying.
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...
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.
"But free market and competition!!!"
🖕
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.
It is more profitable that the beatings continue.
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
I wonder if that would be more effective
I don't think you can pivot a 465 billion dollar company. Especially one where being unethical is a profit making feature.
They won't fix themselves, hell why even reign it in if the system rewards bad behavior?
they know that the publicity is temporary and does not matter because a corporation is not a democracy
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.
CEO's come and go and one just went
The ingredients you got bake the cake you get
So, if you get sick, cross your fingers for luck
'Cause old Richard T. Burke ain't givin' a fuck
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.
My employer had to hire a lawyer to get their insurance company to cover us and stop denying claims. It's beyond fucked up out there.
They're not scared enough yet.
Well shoot, what can be done to fix this?
Your second word.
Let’s take aim at this problem
CEOs will be blown away by the answer.
Whatever idea we come up with is worth a shot
I'm not sure, but I bet someone is losing their mind over this problem!
Super Mario Bros 2025
Bing, Bing, Wah-gunshots
Round two?
Yeah, every story like this plants a seed in someone's mind to be the next Luigi. UHC executives are cultivating their own demise.
Wait! They got a new CEO?
GO! They got a new CEO!
What's she gonna do, appeal?
That type of delay works for them just as well as any other.
Ai: "It is safe and profitable to deny this claim as she is unlikely to seek vengeance."
AI forgot all the people who will seek vengeance for her, however...
Fuck this system, it's absolute trash.
Always has been.
That's why it was created this way. The objective was always for it to be a load of s***.
How Many Times Do We Have to Teach You This Lesson, Old Man?
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.
READY PLAYER TWO
They believe it was a one off lone wolf. Unless they see a pattern there is little to be learnt.
They could put out a story like this every minute of every day and never run out. Burn it all down indeed
And I'm here for it.
Respect to the doctor for publicly shaming United Healthcare.
PLAYER 2 START
Player 2 has been trapped by Bowser inside the Koopa Dungeons, it's Player 1's turn.
Ready, Player 1?
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.
Maybe after the next election?
Stephen Helmsley:
He was managing partner and chief financial officer at Arthur Andersen.
Super shocking that he was doing insider trading at UHC. They hired a known crook and paid him tens of millions a year.
Hemsley: He is a member of the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America, the organization's governing body.
Dial L for Luigi
Huh, guess a few more CEOs need to catch some bullets before things change. Mario Brothers, you know what to do!
I'll put the CEO in a coma.
And I'd vote you not guilty.
And you would be NOT GUILTY
I bet their CEO is not the only one who bleeds.
they have infinite ceos
Funny. I'm pretty sure by that logic there are also infinite something else.
Remember remember, the 4th of December...
Jesus Christ its almost been a month it feels like three.
Dr. Levi better be careful, United may try to claim he’s violating HIPAA by publishing these details (even though it’s legal).
Not a violation unless he has identified the patient
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.
But no, this tweet did not violate HIPAA.
united healthcare looked at bob kelso and was like this guy is the hero of the series.
Bob actually tried to milk the insurance companies for money, IIRC. He wasn't entirely a monster, but definitely had no chill.
undefined
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.
Was Bob actually denying the claims, or just passing the buck to the lawyer character? Can't remember his name.
Edit: Ted! No wonder I didn't remember that. They barely ever actually said his name.
Bob wasn't denying anything.
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.
You must wonder if the board has a death wish at this point, otherwise they must be confident their 24/7 security is up the task
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.
Deny, Delay, Defend.... may I add: Dispose?
It was delay, deny, depose iirc
Denial accomplished. Time to Defend and Depose. Fuck you United Healthcare! My heaven is witnessing your hell.
"We have a fiduciary responsibility to kill these drags on our profits."
--UHC Executives, probably
Definitely
UHC is like: What is she gonna do? Wake up?
"Coma victims have poor aim" United Health, prpobably
Brb loading my gun
A medically unnecessary coma thank you very much 🤔
Everyone: Luigi time
Me: Haha change the Y to an I in that doctor's last name and you get Chuck Bartowski
Might have start going after shareholders if this crap keeps up eh?
These guys have not learned their lesson
To the absolute shock of all the people praising Luigi as the ultimate solution: nothing has changed.
Because work needs to be systemic. Not one-time adventure, but every tuesday in the morning.
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.
I wonder how Mario feels about this while Luigi is on lockdown
Always more castles
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.
The reason for denial given was that the doctor didn’t prove the treatment was medically necessary, not that it costs too much.
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.
I'm not sure who this doctor is
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.