![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
peristaltor.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI ran into a co-worker today, surprised to see him. He had been, as of a few years ago, trying his darnedest to switch careers from navigating hulking cans full of people to actually caring for people as a nurse. I was surprised because in the years since we had last spoken (it's a large organization) he had opted for managerial promotion instead of nursing.
I asked him why. It had less to do with nursing, he explained, that in the tenuous position his wife had at her work. It seemed a bit risky to pursue the multi-year training regimen nursing required, only to fall into the relatively low-paying profession afterwards, when her job, a higher-paying one, might have to be abandoned for either burn-out or ethical conflict reasons, probably both.
Then he ranted a bit about her employer, and once again our broken health care system taken to its extremes demonstrated why we need comprehensive reforms—if not outright prison sentences for the most egregious offenders of common sense and decency.
His wife, he explained, works at a fairly well known consortium of hospitals and research facilities, one that has formed an, er, cancer care alliance of sorts. It does provide cutting-edge treatment; that much is known. What is less well known is that doctors often take cases far out in the fairly hopeless category and administer that knife edge of scientific understanding without consulting the patient's health care plan.
"Funny" story: private health care providers, having an eye on the bottom line of profit, do not reimburse health care professionals for untried, unproven treatments. And they, the insurers, get to decide what is "untried and unproven." This means people trying something that is more bold and perhaps pioneering in medical science often have to foot the bill themselves in a hail Mary pass-like attempt to not die of some cancer. That doesn't mean doctors are under any obligation to inform patients of this, and at my coworker's place of employment, they don't bother.
What they do instead is administer the mondo-expensive treatment. If the insurance pays, great; if they don't, well, the burden is on the patient, who often dies. We are talking treating aggressive, often late-stage cancers, after all. The employer then sues the estate of the former patient seeking every penny of billed treatment. If this impoverishes the patient's surviving dependents, so be it.
Oh, and the entire organization has no patient advocate on staff.
Folks, say what you will about the mythical death panels booga-booga'd about in many former elections and policy fights; doctors sometimes do have the power—nay, the responsibility!—of informing patients as best as they can what treatments are the best and what are the chances of survival. Sometimes that decision rests not with the medical professionals, but with the insurers who veto more "unproven" (read: expensive) treatments. It's up the doctors suggesting the treatment to fight the billing battles, sadly.
But when the doctors pursue the chance to damn the billing arguments and forge boldly into an unproven future using a patient's life as a test subject whether or not he or she can pay?!? That's unconscionable. And for many such doctors to be lured into high-salary positions into an organization that makes such a modus operandi its core competency, that's just fucking evil.
Welcome to the Second World, like the First in industrialization, but more like the Third in terms of how the financial and political elites treat their citizens.
I asked him why. It had less to do with nursing, he explained, that in the tenuous position his wife had at her work. It seemed a bit risky to pursue the multi-year training regimen nursing required, only to fall into the relatively low-paying profession afterwards, when her job, a higher-paying one, might have to be abandoned for either burn-out or ethical conflict reasons, probably both.
Then he ranted a bit about her employer, and once again our broken health care system taken to its extremes demonstrated why we need comprehensive reforms—if not outright prison sentences for the most egregious offenders of common sense and decency.
His wife, he explained, works at a fairly well known consortium of hospitals and research facilities, one that has formed an, er, cancer care alliance of sorts. It does provide cutting-edge treatment; that much is known. What is less well known is that doctors often take cases far out in the fairly hopeless category and administer that knife edge of scientific understanding without consulting the patient's health care plan.
"Funny" story: private health care providers, having an eye on the bottom line of profit, do not reimburse health care professionals for untried, unproven treatments. And they, the insurers, get to decide what is "untried and unproven." This means people trying something that is more bold and perhaps pioneering in medical science often have to foot the bill themselves in a hail Mary pass-like attempt to not die of some cancer. That doesn't mean doctors are under any obligation to inform patients of this, and at my coworker's place of employment, they don't bother.
What they do instead is administer the mondo-expensive treatment. If the insurance pays, great; if they don't, well, the burden is on the patient, who often dies. We are talking treating aggressive, often late-stage cancers, after all. The employer then sues the estate of the former patient seeking every penny of billed treatment. If this impoverishes the patient's surviving dependents, so be it.
Oh, and the entire organization has no patient advocate on staff.
Folks, say what you will about the mythical death panels booga-booga'd about in many former elections and policy fights; doctors sometimes do have the power—nay, the responsibility!—of informing patients as best as they can what treatments are the best and what are the chances of survival. Sometimes that decision rests not with the medical professionals, but with the insurers who veto more "unproven" (read: expensive) treatments. It's up the doctors suggesting the treatment to fight the billing battles, sadly.
But when the doctors pursue the chance to damn the billing arguments and forge boldly into an unproven future using a patient's life as a test subject whether or not he or she can pay?!? That's unconscionable. And for many such doctors to be lured into high-salary positions into an organization that makes such a modus operandi its core competency, that's just fucking evil.
Welcome to the Second World, like the First in industrialization, but more like the Third in terms of how the financial and political elites treat their citizens.
(no subject)
Date: 9/10/13 06:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/13 08:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/13 16:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/13 16:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/10/13 16:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/10/13 18:10 (UTC)Insurance sucks for the insured and the medical system sucks for the uninsured.