MSN
www.msn.com

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

  • Aeao@lemmy.worldEnglish
    90·
    17 days ago

    That’s a nice CEO you got there. Be a shame if something happened to them.

  • Optional@lemmy.worldEnglish
    57·
    17 days ago

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

    • lectricleopard@lemmy.worldEnglish
      80·
      17 days 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.

    • raoul@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      21·
      17 days 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.

  • elucubra@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    41·
    16 days ago

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

      • Klear@lemmy.worldEnglish
        13·
        16 days ago

        Is it effective though? I mean, it’s fun, but I don’t see it actually improving the situation.

        • Womdat10English
          1·
          12 days ago

          Well, this decision just got reversed, so I’d say it does at least a bit

    • floofloof@lemmy.caEnglish
      43·
      17 days 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.

  • Krauerking@lemy.lolEnglish
    36·
    17 days ago

    So they can hurt millions of people all just a little bit more but somehow they are the good guys worth protecting?

    Yeah, we’d be right to start carving names into bullets too. And yet people in charge can’t figure out why protecting these people and their money means the mass populace hates them.

      • NABDad@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        17 days ago

        They aren’t saying you won’t get anesthesia. That would be wrong.

        You just have to pay the bill when you wake up.

        • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          6·
          16 days ago

          You’re assuming doctors will make their decisions based on the legitimate medical needs of their patients.

          But hospital policies are often chosen for other reasons, such as ensuring all bills get paid in full, and no lawsuits are filed by anyone who has enough lawyers to win.

          Those policies can put a doctor’s employment and/or license in jeopardy.

          Doctors are already choosing to let women die rather than get in trouble for doing medically necessary abortions.

          Will they cut anesthesia short and hope they can finish sewing in time? Unlikely, but not nonzero.

  • weew@lemmy.caEnglish
    32·
    17 days ago

    Of course, because in the USA, insurance companies think they understand medicine better than doctors.

  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    31·
    17 days 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.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lolEnglish
      26·
      17 days 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.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    30·
    16 days 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”…