stevenhubertronOct 28

Using AI to negotiate a $195k hospital bill down to $33k

https://www.threads.com/@nthmonkey/post/DQVdAD1gHhw

Matt Rosenberg (@nthmonkey) on Threads

My brother in law died in June. Heart attack. Four hours in the hospital and gone. And then the bills came. He’d let his insurance lapse two months prior. Bills were a few thousand here for the cardiologist, another few there for the ER docs, a bit for the radiologist. I helped my sister-in-law negotiate these down but they weren’t back breakers. Then the hospital bill came: $195k. This is a story about that.

Threads
Show threadchrisgelevenOct 28

I fought insurance over this past summer after they declined covering a life saving surgery for my 6-year-old child at the last minute. We were in despair that my child's life was at risk each day we waited because of insurance incompetence.

ChatGPT literally guided me through the whole external appeal process, who to contact outside of normal channels to ask for help / apply pressure, researched questions I had, helped with wording on the appeals, and yes, helped keep me pushing forward at some of the darkest moments when I was grasping for anything, however small, to help keep the pressure up on the insurance company.

I didn't follow everything it suggested blindly. Definitely decided a few times to make decisions that differed from its advice partially or completely, and I sometimes ran suggested next steps by several close friends/family to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious. But the ideas/path ChatGPT suggested, the chasing down different scenarios to rule in/out them, and coaching me through this is what ultimately got movement on our case.

10 days post denial, I was able to get the procedure approved from these efforts.

21 days post denial and 7 days after the decision was reversed, we lucked into a surgery slot that opened up and my child got their life saving surgery. They have recovered and is in the best health of the past 18 months.

This maybe isn't leveling the playing field, at least not entirely. But it gave us a fighting chance on a short timeline and know where to best use our pressure. The hopeful part of me is that many others can use similar techniques to win.

Show threadegorfineOct 28

Non-US person here.

Happy for your happy-end to that story!

Though why do you Americans put up with all this? I have heard the US is a democracy. So then insurance-based healthcare is what American people truly want?

Show threadgeorgeecollinsOct 28

I think the reason is that people know it is a problem but ideologically they really disagree about what to do about it. The impasse creates an opportunity for profit driven actors to fight reforms. Also, democracies do dumb things sometimes. See Brexit.

But also, sometimes people from other countries-- I am thinking parts of Europe-- underestimate how well paid people in the US often are. They compare the averages, like the US only makes 20% more per household, why do they put up with this or that. But that comparison is for the whole country, so imagine if you were comparing all of Europe or China.

I had a friend in Spain at a similar company as mine say, how can you put up with no safety net, etc. But I look at his company and every one at my company at any level gets paid 2-5x as much. So like these are less serious issues if you are paid an extra $1-200k/ year. It doesn't explain the inaction, but I believe it is why a lot of politically influential people don't care.

Show threadepistasisOct 28

Oddly enough the big rhetorical push against a universal system from prior decades was about "death panels" deciding what care somebody would get. And guess what's happened with insurance? Death panels!

The propaganda spin on the health care system in the US has been on overdrive ever since Hillary Clinton wanted to implement some reforms in the 1990s, leading to absolutely massive resistance to any change whatsoever. Even the changes implemented by Obama, which were a HUGE improvement in access, barely made it across the legislative line, and dismantling that access to the health care system has been a huge rallying cry for one of the major political parties. I won't say which one because mentioning that fact results in people turning off their brains and downvoting.

The US healthcare has optimized for availability and higher access to the most treatment options. This does not mean evenly distributed treatment options, but that people have the chance to get access to things more quickly.

And for most people, the healthcare system works fairly great. There are exceptions, like the denial described in this thread, and they usually get lots of attention because holy hell is that a messed up situation. But the everyday care that most people get is better than adequate.

Show threadxnxOct 28
Like Ticketmaster, health insurance companies get paid to be the "bad guys". This is a reasonable function since Americans can't seem to understand that someone must decide where limited resources go. However, there's no reason their cut should be so large.
Show threadtptacekOct 28

Their cut is in fact very small; it's around 6.5% of total US health care spending.

https://nationalhealthspending.org/

CMS National Health Expenditures

Show threadxnxOct 28
But for what? Why not something closer to credit cards, like 1%?
Show threadtptacek

I don't know how to answer that. I think the system is pretty inefficient in a variety of ways. If you universalized Medicare, eliminating insurance entirely, you'd get costs somewhere in between Medicare's current admin overhead and the overhead of private insurance (you mechanically would not get Medicare's current overhead, because the majority of your customers would have much lower claims than Medicare's all-seniors patients do, and overhead is a ratio).

But the largest inefficiencies are all on the providers side. We simply pay practitioners too much, enforce artificial scarcity of practitioners, and prescribe too many services.

So if we're talking about "The American System" as a whole --- which is what the thread is about --- it behooves us first to consider the question "how much better would things be if we simply zeroed this category of expense out". The answer is, to a first approximation, we would get a 6.5% price break. I would not drive even a couple blocks out of my way to get a 6.5% price break on a pack of chicken breasts.

Oct 28 at 9:15pmWeb
Show threadxnxOct 28

> But the largest inefficiencies are all on the providers side. We simply pay practitioners too much

I agree. The complex insurance billing system enables his by obfuscating prices and limiting ability to comparison shop.

Show threadtptacekOct 28
That's true, but it's a problem single-payer doesn't fix; that's my big issue with it (it locks in rapacious rates and preferences for the health provider industry, making them palatable to consumers by hiding the payer).