Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

antigop

(12,778 posts)
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 05:31 PM Dec 2013

Insurers' Latest Dodge to Not Cover You When You Need It: The Incredible Shrinking Network

h/t to Demeter who posted this on the Stock Market thread:

http://angrybearblog.com/2013/12/insurers-latest-dodge-to-not-cover-you-when-you-need-it-the-incredible-shrinking-network.html

Insurers are actively eliminating must-have hospitals from their networks, while imposing unlimited out-of-pocket charges for out-of-network services. If the provider you need (a pediatric or major-trauma hospital for instance) isn’t in your insurer’s network, you could face financial ruin even though you’re insured.

Here are the crux paras from Ostrom and Landa’s article:

The Seattle Times asked the seven insurance companies selling individual policies in the exchange in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties to list their in-network hospitals.

The results show that only one — Community Health Plan of Washington — includes Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, which offers treatment for some of the most complex cancer cases in the region.

Four of the seven insurers do not include the University of Washington Medical Center or the UW’s Harborview Medical Center — which has the state’s only Level 1 trauma center and burn unit.

Community Health includes every major hospital in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, but is the only exchange insurer that does.

By contrast, Premera and its subsidiary, LifeWise Health Plan of Washington, include many major hospitals, but not the largest Seattle-area hospitals in the two major medical systems — Swedish and UW Medicine.


31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Insurers' Latest Dodge to Not Cover You When You Need It: The Incredible Shrinking Network (Original Post) antigop Dec 2013 OP
This has been going on for years to some extent. Some of the "elimination" is providers who are Hoyt Dec 2013 #1
Another reason why we need single payer. N/t spooky3 Dec 2013 #2
Precisely. jsr Dec 2013 #6
The insurers own actions are becoming the best ad for single payer DJ13 Dec 2013 #3
SINGLE PAYER NOW!!!!! gopiscrap Dec 2013 #4
Can't the State legislature do something to change that? Can't they require insurance companies loudsue Dec 2013 #5
If we want to talk about what COngress could do to improve the ACA BlueStreak Dec 2013 #8
Congress, yes, but they are in a deadlock, and there is little that will change that loudsue Dec 2013 #9
But every Democrat should be out there on the OFFENSIVE BlueStreak Dec 2013 #10
The Dems only message seems to be "not the Republican". Scuba Dec 2013 #12
Worse than that: it seems to be "not quite AS republican". loudsue Dec 2013 #13
And that will not win BlueStreak Dec 2013 #14
They'e cowards about prosecuting CEOs of TBTGAS financial institutions Jackpine Radical Jan 2014 #26
any mention of problems with the aca would be construed as an attack on Doctor_J Jan 2014 #30
The President should be LEADING this BlueStreak Jan 2014 #31
with ALEC's influence at the state level, how many states will tackle the problem? nt antigop Dec 2013 #23
They can and should. At least two other states do, so there's no reason WA couldn't. pnwmom Dec 2013 #15
It is more SHOCK DOCTRINE stuff and needs to be reported. BlueStreak Dec 2013 #7
The USA health care system is not at all as good as Canada's riverbendviewgal Dec 2013 #11
Absolutely right. Jackpine Radical Jan 2014 #27
I agree with you 100 percent riverbendviewgal Jan 2014 #28
WA state does need to amend its laws to prevent this. pnwmom Dec 2013 #16
oh, good lord. A yearly maximum of $12,500. yeah. that'll work. Get real. nt antigop Dec 2013 #17
Considering the hundreds of thousands or even millions pnwmom Dec 2013 #18
oh, good lord. A chronic condition could run $12,500 every year plus the premiums antigop Dec 2013 #19
I said it would work for some people. Do I have to explain to you pnwmom Dec 2013 #20
yeah. "Some people" WHO DON'T LIVE LIKE MOST PEOPLE! nt antigop Dec 2013 #21
the insurers limit the networks to force you out of network antigop Dec 2013 #22
Medical Providers are miffed with insurance companies too. mwooldri Jan 2014 #24
kick. nt antigop Jan 2014 #25
if you like your doctor ... quadrature Jan 2014 #29
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
1. This has been going on for years to some extent. Some of the "elimination" is providers who are
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 05:49 PM
Dec 2013

holding out for more pay. Right now, they can get away with it because the number of insured in the exchange plans are relatively small.

There's a lot of greed in the system that has to be dealt with at some point. It may get ugly for awhile.

loudsue

(14,087 posts)
5. Can't the State legislature do something to change that? Can't they require insurance companies
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 07:09 PM
Dec 2013

licensed to do business in their state to cover ANY hospital? Surely States have a say in at least part of this.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
8. If we want to talk about what COngress could do to improve the ACA
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 07:37 PM
Dec 2013

One thing they could do is mandate that every policy must include at least 60% of the providers in the ares.

Or a better solution would be to offer the public option -- essentially a Medicare buy-in option, and use rates that providers will find acceptable.

loudsue

(14,087 posts)
9. Congress, yes, but they are in a deadlock, and there is little that will change that
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 07:48 PM
Dec 2013

anytime in the near future, short of a miracle and the Koch brothers run out of money. (fat chance)

In the meantime, can't the State legislature tackle this problem?

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
10. But every Democrat should be out there on the OFFENSIVE
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 07:56 PM
Dec 2013

talking about the improvements that are still needed to Health Care.

Why should anybody vote for any Democrat? What are they committed to? What are they promising to work for? What will they promise to do if American voters return Democrats to control of the House and retain control of the Senate?

As far as I can tell, the answer is a big fat NOTHING. And if so, they deserve to lose.

We need a meaningful platform. Here is a good start
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/22/1263930/-A-Democratic-contract-with-America-How-to-retake-the-House-and-combat-economic-inequality

but you will notice there isn't one damn word about health care.

Democrats are damned cowards when it comes to health care, which is almost 20% of our economy. There is no justification for this cowardice.

They are also cowards about the NSA/Defense complex, which is another 8-10% of our economy.

Exactly what part of our economy are they not cowards about? Social Security. I'll give them that. But that isn't enough.

loudsue

(14,087 posts)
13. Worse than that: it seems to be "not quite AS republican".
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 08:15 PM
Dec 2013

There are VERY few dems in the house and the senate. A whole shit load of republican infiltrators calling themselves Dems, but very few actual Dems.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
14. And that will not win
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 08:19 PM
Dec 2013

You have to give people something to vote FOR.

But unfortunately, when you look at that Daily Kos list, almost all of the items are things that the big Wall Street players funding Democrats would hate. So none of that Kos list has a prayer of being a rallying point.

This is what happens when special interests own everybody.

We can argue that the special interests that own the Democrats are morally superior to the special interests that own the Republicans. But in the end, they are mostly the same.

The only difference between the parties is that there are a few more Democrats that act with some independence -- but not nearly enough to get anything done of a progressive nature.

We can take some small consolation that the appointe4es that Obama makes are only somewhat right-wing and not full batshit right-wing, which is what you get from Republicans.

Better than nothing -- but does it really change anything?

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
30. any mention of problems with the aca would be construed as an attack on
Wed Jan 1, 2014, 09:28 PM
Jan 2014

the president. Since they are planning to run on the unmitigated success of aca, pointing out the flaws in it would be a nonstarter.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
31. The President should be LEADING this
Wed Jan 1, 2014, 11:05 PM
Jan 2014

It isn't an attack on Obama if he is leading the parade. And that completely disarms the Republicans. They fail every time you make them play defense.

Without Obama leading we get nowhere. And frankly, he doesn't seem to give a shit whether we win back the House.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
7. It is more SHOCK DOCTRINE stuff and needs to be reported.
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 07:30 PM
Dec 2013

It is bullshit what is going on. In my area (Indianapolis, which happens to be the HQ of Anthem), there are 18 policies on the exchange for my age group. 16 are from Anthem and the other 2 are from a no-name provider canned MDwise.

I had an Anthem policy last year. It had a decent provider network. The premiere hospitals in our area are under the banner of the Indiana University system, but this strangely includes Methodist Hospital, which has always been one of the top ones. I don't know how you legally merge a religious order with the state-supported university, but that's a question for another day. The fact is that is where you need to go if you have any disease that is at all out of the ordinary. These hospitals and most of the docs practicing there were in my pre-ACA Anthem plan.

With the ACA, Anthem saw an opportunity to apply the SHOCK DOCTRINE. Whenever there is a moment of change or crisis, this creates a fog that allows predators to step in and do what they have been wanting to do all along. But the shock is what allows them to get away with it. And make no mistake, Anthem is one of the kings of the predators.

Every one of those Anthem policies -- all 16 of them, use this completely bogus provider network. What people don't understand is that providers have to CHOOSE to be in a network, and that basically boils do to how low they are willing to go on their fees. Well, just for the ACA, Anthem is offering the doctor's equivalent of minimum wage for services on an ACA exchange plan. And consequently, almost no docs bought in. No problem. Anthem signed a deal with the Community Health Network, which is the lowest rated hospital system in the area -- and the one that does most of the Medicaid and indigent care. Only about 10% of the docs in the area are in this network and none of the hospitals I would ever go to.

So 16 of the 18 plans were completely out of the question. None of my doctors were in Anthem's ACA network.

This other company (MDwise) is interesting. They have been in business 18 years, but nobody ever heard of them because they were basically a Medicaid servicer for the State of Indiana and didn't really deal with the public. Their two policies are about the same price as the Anthem ones, and they have a GREAT network. It includes the IU hospital network and any doctor I am likely to want to see. That's it. Only 2 competitors -- one is the big gorilla on its home turf and the other is a company nobody ever heard of.

In the end, I decided to extend my pre-ACA Anthem policy through 2014 because I was concerned that MDwise might have problems their first year dealing with the public. The key point is that the pre-ACA Anthem policy reimburses at rates docs are willing to accept. Anthem's ACA policies are garbage. Only the bottom feeders are in network. And I don't mean "bottom feeder" in a derogatory sense. I know some of those Docs and they are good people. They would be just fine for any routine stuff, but that's not where you go if you have unusual problems.

That pre-ACA policy probably won't be offered after November 2014, so I'll have to go without insurance in December 2014 and then hope there are better choices in the exchange for 2015.

riverbendviewgal

(4,253 posts)
11. The USA health care system is not at all as good as Canada's
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 08:04 PM
Dec 2013

you still have it privatized... Poor america...You must feed the elite insurance corporations and screw your working people .

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
27. Absolutely right.
Wed Jan 1, 2014, 01:52 PM
Jan 2014

Our privatized system is deliberately inefficient and ineffective in order to maximize profits. Obamacare is actually a retooling of an old Republican plan designed by a conservative think tank that had as its primary mission the enrichment of the insurance industry.

Even so, some people are covered who would not otherwise be, etc.

Because of the tight grip the Big Money Guys have on our government, it will just about take a revolution before we restore humane principles to the commons.

And while I'm at it, you Canadians had best keep a lookout as well; they're also after everything good that you have: health care, good pensions, good environment, etc.

riverbendviewgal

(4,253 posts)
28. I agree with you 100 percent
Wed Jan 1, 2014, 03:20 PM
Jan 2014

I doubt Harper will run in the next election. and I doubt that the PC will be a majority party agai. He has too many scandals outed now and I am sure there will be more outed this year.

Our health care is on the table again this year 2014 to be negotiated. right now the Feds pay 80 percent and the provinces 20 percent. the PC government wants it 50 /50....Well there will be a fight. and like the Social Insurance premiums inccrease it will be a big one.
Seniors are still a big voting group....They will not stand for health care being cut and they certainly know the importance of social insurance . Many seniors would be dead without it.



As for the USA health Care , Michael Moore said it all here. This is the year for the Big Fight.. on both sides of the border.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/opinion/moore-the-obamacare-we-deserve.html

All eyes are on Vermont’s plan for a single-payer system, starting in 2017. If it flies, it will change everything, with many states sure to follow suit by setting up their own versions. That’s why corporate money will soon flood into Vermont to crush it. The legislators who’ll go to the mat for this will need all the support they can get: If you live east of the Mississippi, look up the bus schedule to Montpelier.

So let’s get started. Obamacare can’t be fixed by its namesake. It’s up to us to make it happen.

pnwmom

(108,980 posts)
16. WA state does need to amend its laws to prevent this.
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 08:40 PM
Dec 2013

In the meantime, Bridgespan is another possibility. They cover only 50% of out of network costs, but with a yearly maximum of $12,500. This might work for some people.

pnwmom

(108,980 posts)
18. Considering the hundreds of thousands or even millions
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 09:35 PM
Dec 2013

a serious accident could cost, that would be better than having unlimited out-of-network costs. A $12K bill is an amount a person could conceivably work their way out of, if they didn't have savings.


antigop

(12,778 posts)
19. oh, good lord. A chronic condition could run $12,500 every year plus the premiums
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 09:38 PM
Dec 2013

A family could easily run up that amount each year.


How many times do I have to explain this to you?

You obviously do not understand how most people live. You really don't.

pnwmom

(108,980 posts)
20. I said it would work for some people. Do I have to explain to you
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 09:40 PM
Dec 2013

the difference between "some" and "all"?

mwooldri

(10,303 posts)
24. Medical Providers are miffed with insurance companies too.
Wed Jan 1, 2014, 03:10 AM
Jan 2014

Forget about being in network or not... providers find themselves being squeezed by the insurance companies too.

So some providers are deciding not to contract with an insurance company that they feel are giving them the worst deal. The NP who I see for medicine management advised me of this - she dropped out of network from the insurance company I have through work. Her partner, also a doctor in the practice, has turned down the same insurance company's request that he contracts with them... saying that they don't pay enough. It's not as if they don't take insurance... they do but just not that company.

So between the insurance companies and the medical providers... you're not getting coverage. You don't get to keep seeing the same doctors with your insurance plan if the contracts change for in-network benefits. For some, it's find a new doctor. For others it's thinking whether they can afford to see the same doctor out of network.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Insurers' Latest Dodge to...