Cost of IVIG

Messages
582
Likes
1,661
Location
USA
What @SOC said! :thumbsup:

The obscene overcharging and the wanton approval practices of the insurance companies in the USA have nothing to do with the ACA. It's part of the game. Even the CEO of Kaiser-Permanente said it in so many words when they first proposed the HMO model to Richard Nixon in the 1970s:

"All the incentives are toward less medical care, because—the less care they give them, the more money they make." - Mr. Erlichman quoting Edgar Kaiser to President Nixon on February 17, 1971

It's a rigged game from its inception, folks.

I don't disagree with whodathunkit in that government-based health systems also have their problems (look at the dramatic cuts to the NHS currently taking place in the UK). That said, the inherent problem with the American private insurance model is that greed prevails over the health of subscribers. Profit above everything else.

Let me give you a personal example, one of many during my sad and arduous battle with ME/CFS:

A few years ago I was freelancing, and before the ACA, there were barely any options at all for insurance coverage in New York city. I had to join trade associations in order to get something resembling a health plan. This was an insurance plan with extremely high deductibles, and required me to pay south of $1000 a month in premiums. That was one of the very, very few options in NYC to get insurance if you worked on you own, just a few years back.

As my ME/CFS problems progressed, I needed a specific type of endoscopy. I waited until I met the obscenely high deductible to request the procedure. Had to request pre-approval from the insurance company with letters from my doctors, but in the end, they pre-approved it, and I got the endoscopy done.

A few weeks after the procedure I receive a notification that the insurance company declined payment for the endoscopy. I was explained that pre-approval does not guarantee they would agree to cover it, and that their panel of experts decided that this was not to be covered. Like that. As if I had that kind of money laying around, you know...

It took months to fight them. Took them to arbitration, and in the end they didn't pay a danged thing! I had to settle with the hospital, doctor, anesthesia specialist, etc, and arrange a payment plan for that procedure. For the record, I finished paying for that endoscopy this last June. This, on top of the dozens of other medical bills mounting because of my condition.

So you scrambled to get your private insurance policy, paid massive premiums, had to meet sky-high deductibles, and then they could deny coverage on a whim, leaving you out to dry. Basically a legal ponzi scheme.

At least with the ACA now I have options for better insurance plans, and the endoscopy is now covered mandatorily. Not saying that it's perfect --I have my issues with the ACA, but the system won't improve as long as greed is at the core of the healthcare industry. But let me tell you, this beats what we had before.

One thing I know for sure, this wouldn't have happened in Europe. Their systems have other problems, for sure, but not this outright rapacious skimming of patients. I have close to zero respect for the private insurance firms and the people that run them, and it's based in painful personal experiences.
 
Last edited:
Messages
582
Likes
1,661
Location
USA
Speaking of IVIG, two of my doctors told me I need it (I shared my recent lab tests here a few days ago). Both doctors also told me to brace myself for the fight with the insurance, as they will do their darnedest to deny it.

And round and round we go...
 

leokitten

Senior Member
Messages
724
Likes
2,183
Location
Maryland
When I looked up the cost online, it looked like the average cost was about $3000 - $5000 per infusion. I just got my bill and the latest charge for IVIG was about $15,500, well over three times the amount reported in a number of sources -- and I'm not up to full dose yet, so the blood product cost should increase with future infusions. This is not a horrible burden for me personally because at that rate I went over my insurance catastrophic limit with the first infusion, and I have good insurance, so my annual out-of-pocket will be no more than it would have been if they had only charged me $3000 per infusion. The catastrophic limit is the same either way.
After submitting your claim to your insurance company has it been processed and have you gotten your EOB, reimbursement, and new tallies toward your annual out-of-network out-of-pocket maximum? From what I gather you are going out-of-network since they are charging you whatever they want and you are getting a bill for the total. Unless I am misunderstanding something I think you might be in for a surprise when you get your claim processed.

I have very good insurance as well and from my understanding and years of experience with insurance this is not how out-of-network annual out-of-pocket maximums work. For every procedure or treatment (i.e. CPT code), your insurance company has set maximum allowable charge amounts. For in-network sites they can never charge above that, that's the agreement they make by being in-network. But for out-of-network they can charge whatever they want and your insurance will cover some percentage e.g. 70% of the maximum allowable amount for out-of-network.

The only amount that goes towards you out-of-network annual out-of-pocket maximum = maximum allowable charge - amount covered, not the total charge - amount covered. The amount you chose to pay over the maximum allowable charge for that CPT code does not go toward your out-of-pocket maximums. This makes sense because this covers the insurance company from having you visit a doctor or facility that charges exorbitant prices. You will always be liable not matter if you've hit your annual out-of-pocket maximum for total charge - maximum allowable charge.

Still, I'm upset that my local medical monopoly seems to be grossly overcharging for everything. Or is it now typical for a normal <10 minute office visit for a uti to cost $350? My insurance company doesn't think so because it will only pay $160, so my $20 doctor visit copay becomes $190 due to what the insurance company considers overcharging (as do I). My ME/CFS specialist visits don't cost that much, well maybe they do, but they spend an hour or more with me, not less than 10 minutes, and my insurance company considers that a reasonable charge for the time allotted. Imagine if my ME/CFS specialist charged me the same per-minute rate as my local medical monopoly! :eek:

To add insult to injury, when I see the hematologist, they charge me for 30 minutes because I'm talking to some staff member -- a nurse, the scheduling person, or the billing person during that time, even though the doctor only talks to me for 5 minutes, and really about nothing since I'm only there for the infusion. "Hi, how are you feeling? Your last labs looked better, let's keep doing what we're doing. Bye." He's a nice guy and all, but I don't need a $400 visit for that. We could just call that one in, thanks.
Why aren't you going to a doctor that is in-network? Then you won't have to deal with any of this. You have good insurance which means they have tons of excellent doctors in-network.
 
Last edited:

leokitten

Senior Member
Messages
724
Likes
2,183
Location
Maryland
Everything went up in the U.S. when the "Affordable" Care Act went into effect. Cost of my doctor's visits AND what I paid out of pocket went up immediately.

"Affordable". Uh-huh.
Do you want to know why everything went up after the ACA went into effect? It has absolutely nothing to do with the federal government or any flaws in the ACA, if you believe this you have chosen to be blind to facts and instead believe in fiction.

It's because the U.S. health insurance industry is a for-profit industry and like all for-profit businesses all they care about is bringing "value" to their shareholders, i.e. making more and more profit each year thus increasing stock price and providing dividends. Before the ACA the insurance industry, since the beginning of health insurance in the U.S., had almost no regulation whatsoever because of all their lobbying and campaign contributions to corrupt politicians. Having no regulation is great for them because they can then maximize value to shareholders at the expense of their customers lives and health. No other industrialized country in the world has had such a deregulated industry in recent history and no other industrialized country in the world has a for-profit health insurance industry.

After the ACA went into effect and ended all the nefarious and predatory practices of insurance companies as well as bringing in much needed regulation to the industry then of course costs for them went up. Being a for-profit industry they were not going to pass on these costs to the shareholders they passed on the costs to us.
 
Last edited:

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,346
Why aren't you going to a doctor that is in-network?
This is an in-network doctor and hospital.

I have reached my catastrophic limit now, so theoretically I shouldn't have to pay any more. It is not clear, however, if the odd (and expensive) "hospital fee" that is tacked onto my doctor's fee is considered a covered expense by my insurance. I'm working with the clinic and the insurance company to sort that out.
 

leokitten

Senior Member
Messages
724
Likes
2,183
Location
Maryland
This is an in-network doctor and hospital.
Sorry to debate this but they cannot be in-network. An in-network doctor/hospital has agreed to the negotiated fee schedule with the insurance company and they absolutely cannot go and charge whatever they want. Any in-network visit or treatment no matter what always results in you, if you've met your in-network deductible, only paying your copay or coinsurance until you reach your in-network annual out-of-pocket maximum. Then after that you pay zero until the end of the year.

The fact that they are charging well and above the fee schedule means that they are not in-network.

I have reached my catastrophic limit now, so theoretically I shouldn't have to pay any more. It is not clear, however, if the odd (and expensive) "hospital fee" that is tacked onto my doctor's fee is considered a covered expense by my insurance. I'm working with the clinic and the insurance company to sort that out.
I've never heard of catastrophic limit, you should have two out-of-pocket maximums, in-network and out-of-network. I guess this is what you mean? You will likely be liable even if you've hit your out-of-pocket maximum for charges above the maximum covered charge deemed by the insurance company for that CPT code.

Search on Google something like "charges over allowed amount do not count towards out-of-pocket" and you will see what I mean. Everywhere it says what I've written and this has also been my experience even with excellent insurance.
 
Last edited:

leokitten

Senior Member
Messages
724
Likes
2,183
Location
Maryland
I don't know what the solution is, but all current systems are dang sure broken.
I don't know where you've been but there are solutions. Every other wealthy industrialized nation in the world has essentially one of these two systems and either one works so much better than the for-profit, completely unregulated system we have had in the U.S. before the ACA:

1. Single-payer public health insurance
2. Private not-for-profit health insurance industry

In all of these countries healthcare is universal, meaning everyone must have at least the minimum coverage/basic plan and pay into the system. This reduces costs because the healthy and young are subsidizing the old and sick. Both systems are highly regulated to control on costs, meaning that doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies have negotiated fair, reasonable prices for everything.

In many of these countries you can also get private "top-up" plans that provide additional coverage on various things over the basic plan and companies are allowed to make a profit on these optional plans.

If you have not lived for a significant period of time in a country with one of these systems then I feel you cannot truly know what you are missing. Reading propaganda here in the U.S. against these systems will not give you the truth and those who choose to believe these lies just want to believe because they think it "socialism" or some ridiculous thing like that. I mean look at where our capitalist healthcare industry has gotten us before the ACA came into effect?

I lived in Europe for many years, have experienced both systems and they are so much better than here in the U.S.. In fact the ACA was modeled after the insurance industry in the country I lived in the longest. The problems is the ACA couldn't get most of the cost control measures that exist in the country that they modeled it after because of corrupt politicians and heavy lobbying by the AMA (the doctors lobby), AHIP (the insurance industry lobby), and PhRMA (the pharmaceutical industry lobby). The biggest cost control measure if you have a private health insurance industry is forcing them to be not-for-profit for all required plans.

No one should blame the White House they actually tried to go further with the ACA but our legislature is so corrupt that it was impossible. The ACA was a huge step in the right direction. Any republican here on PR will know that none of your legislators ever even bothered to come up with a plan to fix the mess we are in and for decades have been tanking any attempt to change anything. Republicans want the for-profit, unregulated system that has been destroying peoples' lives and health.

If we don't go to a "Medicare for all" single-payer system and they want to leave the industry to be for-profit then the only solution is to impose serious regulation and a universal mandate to control costs. Honestly I don't think it will work as a for-profit industry and if they want to stay away from single-payer then they have to make it completely like the country they modeled it after, it's the only way.
 
Last edited:

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,346
@leokitten, I think you are misreading my reports of my insurance issues. In any case, you don't know the details of how my particular insurance policy works.
I've never heard of catastrophic limit,...
Look it up.

I have no interest is discussing them extensively with you, or anyone else, here at PR and was just making general commentary about the costs of treatment. In hindsight, I wish I hadn't brought it up at all because I don't consider my personal insurance issues a matter for long drawn-out public discussion. But what's done is done. I posted it and it's there on permanent record, but I'm not going to discuss it further.
 

leokitten

Senior Member
Messages
724
Likes
2,183
Location
Maryland
@leokitten, I think you are misreading my reports of my insurance issues. In any case, you don't know the details of how my particular insurance policy works.

Look it up.

I have no interest is discussing them extensively with you, or anyone else, here at PR and was just making general commentary about the costs of treatment. In hindsight, I wish I hadn't brought it up at all because I don't consider my personal insurance issues a matter for long drawn-out public discussion. But what's done is done. I posted it and it's there on permanent record, but I'm not going to discuss it further.
Wow ok, it's really nice how you appreciate it when other people try to help you. I have looked it up and everything on the web says catastrophic limit/cap = out-of-pocket maximum. What I've written about applies to all insurance policies in the U.S., there is no difference in your policy or anyone else's when it comes to these basic principles. You will likely be liable for any costs over maximum allowable amounts even if you've hit your out-of-pocket maximum.

The fact that you complain about doctors charging you exorbitantly when clearly if you went to an in-network doctor you would have none of these problems astounds me. Everyone here from the U.S. on PR who has insurance knows it works this way and that you are definitely visiting out-of-network doctors.
 

leokitten

Senior Member
Messages
724
Likes
2,183
Location
Maryland
As I've said, you are not seeing in-network providers and would stand to save a lot of money if you did. In-network providers have agreed with your insurance to pay contracted rates and only charge you your copay or coinsurance.

http://fairhealthconsumer.org/reimbursementseries.php?id=47&terms=in-network-vs-out-of-network-care
Your plan contracts with a wide range of doctors, as well as specialists, hospitals, labs, radiology facilities and pharmacies. These are the providers in your “network.” Each of these providers has agreed to accept your plan’s contracted rate as payment in full for services.

That contracted rate includes both your insurer’s share of the cost, and your share. Your share may be in the form of a co-payment, deductible or co-insurance (more information on cost-sharing is available here). For instance, your insurer’s contracted rate for a primary care visit might be $120. If you have a $20 co-payment for primary care visits, you will pay $20 when you see a doctor in your network. Your insurer will pick up the remaining $100.

If you go outside your network, it’s a different story. You will likely pay more if you go “out-of-network” for your care. That’s because:
  • Providers outside your network have not agreed to any set rate with your insurer, and may charge more.
  • Your plan may require higher co-pays, deductibles and co-insurance for out-of-network care. So, if you normally have to pay 20% of the cost of the service in-network, you may have to pay 30% out-of-network. Often, you’ll have to pay that PLUS any difference between your insurer’s allowed amount and what the provider charges.
  • Your plan may not cover out-of-network care at all, leaving you to pay the full cost yourself.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1
Likes
3
I can't even get our insurance to cover it. I think they know once they say YES, it is going to be a huge cost to them.
So they just let us suffer..
Hey Billit, I was just on this thread out of curiosity and I saw this post and just want to share my experience. Every single year my insurance company throws a big fit about my IVIG and tries to tell me that it's not covered so I've definitely been there and after 15 years of this I have a couple of pro tips you might find works for you.
My usually plan of attack is this: I get on the phone with the insurance guy and he denies my medication and I tell him that I'll send my funeral bill to him. A total overreaction, but what they usually do with that is they get their manager and then that manager gets their manager because no one wants to deal with crazy people. Once I have the important guy on the phone I very nicely explain that if my IVIG is denied I'll have no other choice but to go to the emergency room every weekend for it instead of my usual home Sub Q kit. I tell him that my husband and I are very well off (total lie) so I dobt really care about the price difference, but they should. That's threat is usury enough to get it approved within 24 hours. But if it the that doesn't work, hassle the crap out of them. Remember their names and make sure that they remember yours!
Hope this helps!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Billt

Senior Member
Messages
275
Likes
423
Location
New Orleans
Hey Billit, I was just on this thread out of curiosity and I saw this post and just want to share my experience. Every single year my insurance company throws a big fit about my IVIG and tries to tell me that it's not covered so I've definitely been there and after 15 years of this I have a couple of pro tips you might find works for you.
My usually plan of attack is this: I get on the phone with the insurance guy and he denies my medication and I tell him that I'll send my funeral bill to him. A total overreaction, but what they usually do with that is they get their manager and then that manager gets their manager because no one wants to deal with crazy people. Once I have the important guy on the phone I very nicely explain that if my IVIG is denied I'll have no other choice but to go to the emergency room every weekend for it instead of my usual home Sub Q kit. I tell him that my husband and I are very well off (total lie) so I dobt really care about the price difference, but they should. That's threat is usury enough to get it approved within 24 hours. But if it the that doesn't work, hassle the crap out of them. Remember their names and make sure that they remember yours!
Hope this helps!
Ja thanks for the information. Our insurance has fought us all the way. We went through 3 appeals and spoke to so many people. But they are firm.. He has selective ID and not primary, so that seems to be where they just won't give in.
We are switching to new insurance the 1st of the year and I am hoping and praying they will be better.
I have not tired the funeral bill tactic but that is a great idea. Maybe it is time to bug them more. Heck there job is to NOT cover you anyway.! Along with the threat of the ER every week may make them think about it
All of these are great ideas and I very much appreciate it. He turns 26 next year so that will be another new battle to get him insurance. One step at a time I guess. I really think the IVIG could help him since he is immune deficient . My best guess is that is why he can't get over the EBV. Thanks so much again... Billt
 
Messages
48
Likes
46
Location
Texas
IVIG costs 460 euros a month at my doctors clinic in Europe. The cost of the drug is 400 euros and 60 euros for the infusion - I know this low cost is unusual, but it goes to show how much money they are making out of it elsewhere.

They used to charge £800 pounds per infusion at Breakspear, but refused me it on the grounds it was too dangerous.

I pay 80 euros now for a 10ml vial that lasts me one and a half weeks (low dose sub q injections)
--------------

I have wanted to respond to this. I have always understood that the vials are single use only - not multi dose vials.. Meaning once you enter the vial the contents must be infused/injected within a few hours. Don't know if things are different in Europe or with different brands. I sincerely do not think the same vial can be drawn from and injected over a period of several days. @justy @mission impossible @Rrrr @Daffodil

To add: Although one might wonder why not. No preservatives in the vials? Risk of bacteria/infection from repeatedly entering the vial? The immunoglobulins degrade once vial is entered/"exposed"? There is a reason why meds come in SDV and MDV's.

As an aside: Why can some meds be shipped and stored in syringes - ready to inject.
Does that have anything to do - in some cases - with avoiding re-entering vials? Pardon I am not asking this correctly. For example - Vitamin C comes in SDV's. I receive it in syringes that must be used within a certain amount of days (frozen). If I receive the vial and draw up one dose myself I cannot draw up another one days later. Make sense? How would one compare this to other meds including Gamma that are in SDV's?
 
Last edited:

justy

Donate Advocate Demonstrate
Messages
5,524
Likes
12,233
Location
U.K
--------------

I have wanted to respond to this. I have always understood that the vials are single use only - not multi dose vials.. Meaning once you enter the vial the contents must be infused/injected within a few hours. Don't know if things are different in Europe or with different brands. I sincerely do not think the same vial can be drawn from and injected over a period of several days. @justy @mission impossible @Rrrr @Daffodil

To add: Although one might wonder why not. No preservatives in the vials? Risk of bacteria/infection from repeatedly entering the vial? The immunoglobulins degrade once vial is entered/"exposed"? There is a reason why meds come in SDV and MDV's.

As an aside: Why can some meds be shipped and stored in syringes - ready to inject.
Does that have anything to do - in some cases - with avoiding re-entering vials? Pardon I am not asking this correctly. For example - Vitamin C comes in SDV's. I receive it in syringes that must be used within a certain amount of days (frozen). If I receive the vial and draw up one dose myself I cannot draw up another one days later. Make sense? How would one compare this to other meds including Gamma that are in SDV's?
The patient information ;leaflet for Gammanorm states clearly that it is a single use vial and any left should be disposed of - However, my prescribing Dr, and the nurses in the clinic all say it is fine to keep using same vial. When I ordered it from the pharmacy there was some confusion about this as well, so he contacted someone (not sure if the company) and said that if you are using low dose injections then it is OK to use the same vial for three doses...I odnt understand this myself, but so far the Dr, two nurses and a chemist have confirmed this is in fact OK, despite the manufacturers info.
 
Messages
48
Likes
46
Location
Texas
Justy - thanks - that is interesting. My doses are higher so I use the entire vials - but have always wondered about this with the Gamma and other drugs. I inject another drug that is drawn up in the doctor's office - into syringes - that are good for months if kept in the fridge. That kind of gives me the the heebeejeebies - but the nurses say the needles and syringes are sterile - so is OK. Don't know if preservatives in that vial or not - as I think is a MDV anyway
Curious how you were instructed to store your Gammanorm? Do you draw up three syringes - use one - and put the other two in the fridge? Or draw from the vial separate days?
I am thinking back to years ago when I first started giving myself B12 injections. I did so many things wrong I am surprised I did not get the epizooda. MDV that I kept in bathroom cabinet exposed to heat from the shower.
I used that one vial over a period of months. Sure I wiped off the top with alcohol each time using the vial - but yikes.
Well I have strayed off the topic of this thread but wanted to pipe in just in case.....
OK - so I am still wondering what is better - to draw up drugs into the syringes (sterile but plastic) or draw from the original container (vial and glass) in terms of possible contamination - when the meds are not used within hours..
Re-entering vials seems to be a big concern.
 

justy

Donate Advocate Demonstrate
Messages
5,524
Likes
12,233
Location
U.K
Just use from same vial. Sored in fridge, alcohol wipe top, needle is sterile anyway....that's what I was told.
 
Messages
1
Likes
0
IVIG costs 460 euros a month at my doctors clinic in Europe. The cost of the drug is 400 euros and 60 euros for the infusion - I know this low cost is unusual, but it goes to show how much money they are making out of it elsewhere.

They used to charge £800 pounds per infusion at Breakspear, but refused me it on the grounds it was too dangerous.

I pay 80 euros now for a 10ml vial that lasts me one and a half weeks (low dose sub q injections)
Justy, where can you get IVIGfor 460 euros in the UK/Europe? thanks
 

JaimeS

Senior Member
Messages
3,407
Likes
12,211
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
I find this all very interesting because I just wrote all about the Affordable Care Act and what it means for insurance industries. It's actually really good news for us... if only the insurance companies would catch on.

So here's the deal, so far as I understand it. Every year (or sometimes over the course of the year, depending on how you want to play it) insurance companies have to do a risk assessment. Risk assessments take medical codes -- that's it, no commentary, no details, just diagnosis codes of what illnesses patients have -- and use that to estimate their overall yearly costs. They have to submit this to the government. Companies that didn't get as many ill people as the countrywide average have to miss out on revenue by handing that money to companies that ended up getting *more* sick people. This is to prevent physicians and insurance companies from being penalized for simply ending up with more seriously ill people than other companies or groups... especially since the ACA says that you can no longer turn anyone away.

Therefore, it's financially profitable to have sick patients. But not just any sick patients. Chronically sick patients. Especially if their current insurance keeps denying them and their current health is poor without being life-threatening.

Why? Because you get their diagnosis codes (which look grim: POTS, diabetes, heart conditions, CVID) but when you give them decent care, they should improve, and end up having fewer visits to the E.R., fewer long-term problems, and fewer surgeries. Chronically-ill patients who are well looked-after generate revenue. These people are good investments.

The ideal new member in an insurance plan is someone who's really sick with a chronic illness and hasn't been taken care of. But it's so counter to the way things have been done in the past, I wonder how many people have caught on or really absorbed the lesson about the new dam that's diverted their revenue stream. It's carved into the company culture to deny coverage over and over again until an emergency results; it must be hard-wired into the people in this business, and I have no idea how many years it'll take them to change.

Forward-thinking insurance companies are now hiring people just to call the members of their plan and remind them to get check-ups (for various reasons, including this one -- without a doctor's visit, they have NO diagnosis codes, and can't make ANY money off the patient that year). Can you imagine an insurance company before ACA urging you to go see your doctor?

The flip side is that there's now a movement to get people diagnosed with as many illnesses as possible, in order to generate revenue. I'm 100% serious. I read an article entitled, Your Patients as Zombies.

A little insurance humor. ;)

What (maybe) holds this in check is that insurance companies have a high incentive to 'catch' other insurance companies at cheating, because it cuts into their bottom line. But I think they may spend more effort making their members sound sickest than they do policing other companies. I have a world of citation if anyone's interested. ;)

This week, I've been learning about how large companies clean their floors. Ah, life as a freelance writer: every day a new adventure! :rolleyes::lol::D

-J
 

*GG*

senior member
Messages
6,321
Likes
4,984
Location
Concord, NH
I find this all very interesting because I just wrote all about the Affordable Care Act and what it means for insurance industries. It's actually really good news for us... if only the insurance companies would catch on.

Therefore, it's financially profitable to have sick patients. But not just any sick patients. Chronically sick patients. Especially if their current insurance keeps denying them and their current health is poor without being life-threatening.

Why? Because you get their diagnosis codes (which look grim: POTS, diabetes, heart conditions, CVID) but when you give them decent care, they should improve, and end up having fewer visits to the E.R., fewer long-term problems, and fewer surgeries. Chronically-ill patients who are well looked-after generate revenue. These people are good investments.

The ideal new member in an insurance plan is someone who's really sick with a chronic illness and hasn't been taken care of. But it's so counter to the way things have been done in the past, I wonder how many people have caught on or really absorbed the lesson about the new dam that's diverted their revenue stream. It's carved into the company culture to deny coverage over and over again until an emergency results; it must be hard-wired into the people in this business, and I have no idea how many years it'll take them to change.

Forward-thinking insurance companies are now hiring people just to call the members of their plan and remind them to get check-ups (for various reasons, including this one -- without a doctor's visit, they have NO diagnosis codes, and can't make ANY money off the patient that year). Can you imagine an insurance company before ACA urging you to go see your doctor?

The flip side is that there's now a movement to get people diagnosed with as many illnesses as possible, in order to generate revenue. I'm 100% serious. I read an article entitled, Your Patients as Zombies.

This week, I've been learning about how large companies clean their floors. Ah, life as a freelance writer: every day a new adventure! :rolleyes::lol::D

-J
So what is our treatment protocol? You say the "ideal member is someone ill and not been taken care of". Lots of us see the Drs, they just are not much, if any help!

I don't see a monstrosity of a bill as good for America, it's cost more than predicted, and dragging down the economy. I don't see a path towards more socialized medicine as good for US. Just look at our friends in Canada and the UK. I don't hear them saying how great the care is, right?

I wish more gov't and spending was the answer, but that is a very rare case, if ever :)

So are you saying that the Insurance companies cannot make money off our office visits if we do not have an ICD code? That doesn't seem logical.

Perhaps you can start a thread on this, or maybe not :)

GG

PS So why is it that one of the largest Health Insurance companies in the US looking to pull out? United Health care perhaps is the name?