Assassination of United Healthcare CEO

[The Great Zaganza]

Looks like the guy was under investigation for Insider trading and the company for fraud.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Looks like the guy was under investigation for Insider trading and the company for fraud.

If this were a TV mystery then it would turn out to have been a suicide he arranged to look like a murder. Or a rival executive to stop him spilling the beans on some crime they were doing. But real life is seldom so interesting; the simplest explanation really is "upset customer" and the lack of professionalism in the murder, plus (if true as being reported) words being carved on the bullets, do point toward that explanation so far.

 

[Andy_Ross]

According to the BBC:

"Deny, defend, depose': Words on shell casings confirmedpublished at 13:06
13:06Breaking

Earlier, we mentioned that US media said police have found three shell casings with words on them.

Our US partner CBS News has just confirmed with law enforcement officials that the words "deny," "defend," and "depose" were written on the shell casings recovered at the scene of the attack.

Officials say they are examining whether the words point to a motive related to insurance companies' responses to claims.

That the words were written on the shell casings, according to officials, was first reported by ABC News"





The motive remains a mystery...

Reference to this maybe?

 

[3point14]

By definition, an insurance company that regularly makes big profits is overcharging its customers. If there was actual market competition, this would not be possible.

So - genuine question:

Why has an insurance company not arisen that makes limited profit and provides good coverage without stress arisen?

 

[Ziggurat]

So - genuine question:

Why has an insurance company not arisen that makes limited profit and provides good coverage without stress arisen?

With a market as complex as health care, there's probably multiple reasons. One contributing factor is that there are massive barriers to entry into the market. Health care regulations are sufficiently onerous that you need to invest a LOT of money into just complying with the law before you can even start to do anything.

Another reason is that people try to scam insurers, and they have to try to limit that in order to survive. And a lot of the measures that insurance providers use to limit scams also inconvenience legitimate customers.

 

[Thermal]

No. The anesthesiologist's pay, the assistants, the equipment, the supplies, all the rest are other charges. Anesthesia TIME is a separate charge. You are paying for the time you are under anesthesia, for the process that is being-kept-unconscious-per-second. In increments of 10 or 15 minutes. All the other stuff? That's separate. Anthem wants to blow off responsibility for covering anesthesia time charges if they exceed the length Anthem assumes each particular procedure should take.

Ok, but that doesn't negate any of my propositions; it just muddied the waters and actually makes it worse.

I mean, I get that the billing has to bankroll all the hospital's carry costs, from property taxes and a rather substantial electric bill to the guys cleaning the joint. But when you have the anesthesiologist billing their half day rate four times over in the same two hour procedure (I posit), the insurer says "Enough already. You physically can't do two days work in two hours. Knock it the ◊◊◊◊ off".

What I'm saying is that the insurers, who cover treatments day and night with a smile, are saying that some factions are dipping their beaks a little too much and they are drawing a line? I really don't think many anesthesiologists are on food stamps. They seem.to be pulling some staggeringly good money, on the insurer's dime.

What I'm saying is that maybe these providers aren't Dr Evil, and are not trying to be fleeced by paying two days rates for two hours? I mean, plausibly? My wife's last time going under was billed at something close to $20 large, IIRC (I like looking at the staggering sums the insurance is paying, from a sausage making standpoint). That was not the surgeon himself or any of the other things. That was the knockout crew with their hopped up roofies.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Can we al lagree an insurance executive shouldn't be the one to decide when or how much anesthesia is needed?

I would liken it to a car insurance company setting a policy that a repair shop can only use a torque wrench 8 times per head gasket replacement. If the mechanic uses it 9 or more times, the repair is not covered.

 

[kookbreaker]

Aren't most Pistol rounds subsonic?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ok, but that doesn't negate any of my propositions; it just muddied the waters and actually makes it worse.

I mean, I get that the billing has to bankroll all the hospital's carry costs, from property taxes and a rather substantial electric bill to the guys cleaning the joint. But when you have the anesthesiologist billing their half day rate four times over in the same two hour procedure (I posit), the insurer says "Enough already. You physically can't do two days work in two hours. Knock it the ◊◊◊◊ off".

What I'm saying is that the insurers, who cover treatments day and night with a smile, are saying that some factions are dipping their beaks a little too much and they are drawing a line? I really don't think many anesthesiologists are on food stamps. They seem.to be pulling some staggeringly good money, on the insurer's dime.

What I'm saying is that maybe these providers aren't Dr Evil, and are not trying to be fleeced by paying two days rates for two hours? I mean, plausibly? My wife's last time going under was billed at something close to $20 large, IIRC (I like looking at the staggering sums the insurance is paying, from a sausage making standpoint). That was not the surgeon himself or any of the other things. That was the knockout crew with their hopped up roofies.

We're derailing this thread. But you're not getting what I'm saying. The time charge is NOT the anesthesiologist's pay. The act of being under anesthesia is itself a billable charge. You're paying for being kept in the state of unconsciousness. And no, god no, the first fifteen minutes of anesthesia time doesn't "pay a day rates". Operating rooms are sometimes called the most expensive real estate on earth. Every second you're in there is costing money. A lot of money. Time charges are more like rent than like buying a product. Renting something very expensive. Instead of your analogies of building contractors you should be thinking of renting time on the Hubble Space Telescope, or reserving some hadron collider usage.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I would liken it to a car insurance company setting a policy that a repair shop can only use a torque wrench 8 times per head gasket replacement. If the mechanic uses it 9 or more times, the repair is not covered.

Well, it's not quite that bad. Anthem's still going to pay for the first 8 times, they just won't pay for the 9th or subsequent.

 

[Thermal]

We're derailing this thread.

Agreed. But if an interesting sidebar comes up, Imma go fishing around.

But you're not getting what I'm saying.

I am. You seem to think I'm arguing something entirely else.

The time charge is NOT the anesthesiologist's pay. The act of being under anesthesia is itself a billable charge. You're paying for being kept in the state of unconsciousness. And no, god no, the first fifteen minutes of anesthesia time doesn't "pay a day rates". Operating rooms are sometimes called the most expensive real estate on earth. Every second you're in there is costing money. A lot of money. Time charges are more like rent than like buying a product. Renting something very expensive. Instead of your analogies of building contractors you should be thinking of renting time on the Hubble Space Telescope, or reserving some hadron collider usage.

Right, and not only do I get that, I spelled it the ◊◊◊◊ out in my last post. It's expensive as hell.

My point is the nature of billables, that an anesthesiologist would not be immune from. It's is again my layest of lay understanding that the insurer pays the justifiably astronomical bills, but at the same time, as a functioning business, is watching for double dipping. They are not Dr Evil. They have to be solvent or they can't cover anyone.

But again, we are way off track here. Back to the logistics of street killing. More in my lane than insurance billing, anyway.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Well, it's not quite that bad. Anthem's still going to pay for the first 8 times, they just won't pay for the 9th or subsequent.

And it is well known that operations only take longer than needed when the hospital wants to scam the insurance company.
After all, it will never happen that someone has complications, then under this new rule loses a significant amount of money and / or possibly a loved one as they cannot afford the surgery and then would seek to punish those they feel are responsible.

 

[Donal]

Yeah, that was my point. Insurance holds way too much power it shouldn't in medicine, and people are not happy with them. Hence the reaction to this UHC CEO getting murdered. Every day things get worse. More and more money is paid in, less and less to show for it, as those at the top heap up their personal fortunes. Something's gotta give eventually, and the longer it takes the bigger the explosion will be.

A steady, sensible unwinding of the current system, restraining the worst excesses of capitalism, would make things smooth and peaceful. But this, what we got going on now? We're headed for a revolution.

New York State has has a bill sitting in committee called the New York Health Act. It is essentially Medicrare4All for anyone who lives or works in New York State. I've been trying to get information from my assemblyman and state senator, but no one seems to have an answer on when its going to go anywhere.

Stuff like that might save a few isnurance executives' lives

 

[Thermal]

ReferenceView attachment 57968 to this maybe?

 

[ponderingturtle]

New York State has has a bill sitting in committee called the New York Health Act. It is essentially Medicrare4All for anyone who lives or works in New York State. I've been trying to get information from my assemblyman and state senator, but no one seems to have an answer on when its going to go anywhere.

Stuff like that might save a few isnurance executives' lives

But at the cost of their fortune, really keeping the money flowing properly is worth the odd death.

 

[plague311]

My point is the nature of billables, that an anesthesiologist would not be immune from. It's is again my layest of lay understanding that the insurer pays the justifiably astronomical bills, but at the same time, as a functioning business, is watching for double dipping. They are not Dr Evil. They have to be solvent or they can't cover anyone.

Then they need to take that up with the anesthesiologist, not pass that cost on to the insured. The insured literally have no recourse or input on how long they're under and can do nothing to alter the process once it begins. The insured can't decline more anesthesia or stop the surgery. Anthem should have to work it out, it's a them problem.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The sad part is, a lot of this moneygrubbing insurors do is unnecessary. There is legitimate waste in healthcare operations, and it can be trimmed in ways that not only doesn't harm the patients/customers, but actually benefits their health outcomes. Like the push for healthcare to follow particular measures like seeing patients get colonoscopies at certain ages and intervals, for diabetics to keep their A1C monitored, for women to get regular mammograms. Doctors get their patients to receive these things, and it helps prevent worsening issues or detect them earlier and get them treated, which is both healthier for the patient and cheaper in the long run for their insurors. Insurance paying for a colonoscopy at 46 is a lot cheaper for them than paying for colorectal cancer treatments at 60. So much so, in fact, that many insurors (most?) actually give money back to the providers if their patients meet the conditions of those measures. Insurance as a middleman is not ideal, of course, but until we achieve universal health care it can in fact be run ethically with less horrific outcomes for the customers. IFF they're willing to restrain their worst impulses towards greed.

 

[Donal]

What's crazy is, the guy really was jsut a cog i nthe machine. A shiny cog, but a cog. That investor meeting he was going to didn't even delay their start. In the end, he was jsut as disposable as any of us.

His contemporaries should think about that.

 

[Thermal]

Then they need to take that up with the anesthesiologist, not pass that cost on to the insured. The insured literally have no recourse or input on how long they're under and can do nothing to alter the process once it begins. The insured can't decline more anesthesia or stop the surgery. Anthem should have to work it out, it's a them problem.

Again, we are begging for a rule 11 ding, but: from the insurers standpoint, they get hit with these bills. Supposed to be covered by them per the insurance agreement. What I'm wondering is if they detect a specific abuse here along the lines I am posing.

The way Anthem is being framed is purely one-sided and highly demonizing. Makes them look like ogres. Are they really? What do they say in their defense? Can they even publicly say "our fraud prevention team has determined we're being ◊◊◊◊◊◊ like a ten dollar hooker with redundant billing and this was one of the culprits, but it's the one that bleeds, so it leads"?

 

[Vixen]

Wow, seems to be huge public anger over US healthcare corporations. I am quite amazed at how the execution of this one CEO has sparked off a debate about the entire US healthcare system.

CONFLICT NEWS FELLA (@warosintfella.bsky.social)

A doctor’s letter to United Healthcare for denying nausea meds for a child on chemo

bsky.app