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
That’s a nice CEO you got there. Be a shame if something happened to them.
Or would it
So it’s time to murder another ceo?
Self defense is not murder
Rejecting torture.
Sorry, I misspoke
The patient has a right to defend themselves and should get access to 2000 pound bombs.
Is this a reference to something?
Yes
What is it?
The IDF likes to defend themselves with 2000 pound bombs.
Oh
🍽🍽🍽🍽🍽🍽🍽
It was already reversed.
We got them scared
Didn’t verify, but someone said it was only reversed in like one out of the five proposed states. Figures
usually when a thing is reversed due to outrage, the entity will simply wait a few months to quietly put said thing into effect again
They should be.
I propose a guillotine emoji.
🧑🌾
The fact that there aren’t riots in the US demanding universal care simply baffles me.
Who needs roots when killing CEOs is more effective?
Is it effective though? I mean, it’s fun, but I don’t see it actually improving the situation.
Well, this decision just got reversed, so I’d say it does at least a bit
It’s not a one time solution, it’s a lifestyle change. You have to keep doing it.
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”…
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.
I’d say any surgery without anesthesia is hurting more than a little bit. What are we, Gaza?
They aren’t saying you won’t get anesthesia. That would be wrong.
You just have to pay the bill when you wake up.
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.
That’s right. Rush the surgeons. That will end well.
Of course, because in the USA, insurance companies think they understand medicine better than doctors.
And so do Politicians and Parents…
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.
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.
Deny, Defend, Depose
I would find it darkly hilarious if this killing sparks a war
I would find it hilarious if it sparks class solidarity, personally
How did they figure out the amount because the different people have different tolerances. My brother had a surgery that had not started and they were like. Your still awake. When meeting with the anethsiaologist before surgery he has to mention he may need a bit more than normal plus I believe there is a weight thing. Is the amount allowed assuming a worst case longest surgery with person who requires the most anesthia to six sigma of the population.
Exactly, like how redheads need more anesthesia
Real answer? Who knows
Cynical answer? However low their lawyers told them they could get away with without being liable
I remember some jokes around it being about cell receptiveness. Like their receptors don’t react to taking pigment the same way they don’t react to the anesthesia as well. If so, it would likely be a genetic trait, so the more natural red heads that have extremely low pigment may require more anesthesia to keep them under. But I’m no doctor, and most of those jokes had to do with their soul not being around to pick up the call 🤷.
This is fucking insane
Noticed the Connecticut exemption, must be a law there. I’ll take “laws you wouldn’t think could be necessary” for $400, Alex. Guess we better get California working on that as well.
You’d be surprised how many of them there are. Massachusetts has a law that requires insurance companies to cover transgender care, including both HRT and surgeries, because insurance wouldn’t cover any of them otherwise. Trans related surgeries are classified as “cosmetic” and therefore not necessary or life-saving according to insurance companies, despite the mountain of studies saying how important they can be for people’s quality of life.
Good for MA. Hoping it doesn’t become moot because of a national ban on trans care. Bullies always start with the most vulnerable.
and for Connecticut providers
Anybody from Connecticut care to respond. Why is your state so special?
From a more recent article where Anthem now says they won’t implement this policy:
Connecticut comptroller Sean Scanlon said the “concerning” policy wouldn’t affect the state after conversations with the insurance company. And New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said in an emailed statement Thursday that her office had also successfully intervened.
Don’t they have the closest thing to universal healthcare in the US?
