Latest Breaking News

but your response seems more aggressive than necessary. I haven't deliberately misconstrued anything, I don't even think I'm disagreeing with you.

I'm saying: insurance companies reimburse facilities for provided care and in turn facilities generate revenue. Facility administrators decide what percentage of that revenue goes into staffing, equipment, etc. vs. executive salaries, etc. Therefore, the capabilities present within any given facility or program are determined by administrators and board members, not the payors. It is possible that the insurance company is, in their opinion, paying for some kind of enhanced care that the facility isn't in turn providing.

I'm also saying this: hospital diversion is not in and of itself a bad thing, in fact, it is a good thing. There is plenty of research that suggests hospitalization, especially for frail elders, makes things much worse and oftentimes is the beginning of the end. Additionally, as we know, inpatient hospitalization is very expensive and is often used for services that can be provided more cheaply elsewhere.

Therefore, this article that wants to capitalize on the hot button "UHC" doesn't seem to get to the heart of what is actually going on here while creating an irrational response: hospital diversion = withholding care. It is certainly possible that someone doesn't get the care they need in the time they need it, happens all the time, but in my experience, 9 times out of ten that has more to do with the facility administration rather than the insurance company.