“… The “dirty secret” of the insurance industry is that most denials can be successfully appealed…”

  • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Interesting idea, but I imagine it suffers from similar issues to writing legal opinions: by signing your name to it, you’re swearing that it’s all true. Given AI’s propensity for making things up, you need to check everything.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘knowingly filing a false appeal’ is a reason to boot you off the plan in the first place.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s still a lot easier to review and understand something you weren’t able to write than to also write that same thing without knowing how to write it.

      • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Indeed. Just need to remember that AI can and will hallucinate entire studies or court cases into existence.

    • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘knowingly filing a false appeal’ is a reason to boot you off the plan in the first place.

      For that to be an issue you would have to “know” it was false.

      • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        You signed it, verifying that you knew what it entailed. That’s what the comment was pointing out.

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Usually when signing things off like this, it’s affirming that you believe all statements to be true. They would have to prove you willingly lied, not that you were simply wrong, which is very difficult to prove legally.

          That said, IANAL.

          • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            ‘Reckless disregard for the truth’ shows up sometimes, especially in e.g. defamation.

            If the AI cites some legal case from 2015 or a random medical article, you probably need to ensure that those articles actually exist, and not simply assume that the AI is right.

            If the AI said that a month’s supply of Fentanyl is the recommended treatment for a headache, no reasonable person is going to believe it. That means that if you say that you believe that, the court isn’t going to consider you a reasonable person.

            IANAL either.

            • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Hah true, true. If you don’t read the output at all and do the most minimal of research, that’s on you for sure.

              Now excuse me while I pop some Fent, my head is killing me.

        • madcaesar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          What’s the legal code if you THINK something is true and you affirm it, but you are wrong. It can’t be the same as lying since you thought it was true.

          I really wonder what the law says on something like that.

          • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            ‘Reckless disregard for the truth’ shows up sometimes, especially in e.g. defamation.

            If the AI cites some legal case from 2015 or a random medical article, you probably need to ensure that those articles actually exist, and not simply assume that the AI is right.

            If the AI said that a month’s supply of Fentanyl is the recommended treatment for a headache, no reasonable person is going to believe it. That means that if you say that you believe that, the court isn’t going to consider you a reasonable person.

    • kalkulat@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      by signing your name to it, you’re swearing that it’s all true.

      Lawyers too use qualifiers like ‘To the best of our knowledge’ and ‘in our studied opinion’ to indicate that opinions may differ. That’s why judges exist, and some of them are -so reasonable- that they will accept that people cannot be expected to decide whether a hospital’s decision to operate -immediately- is not good enough.

      These US ‘insurance’ companies are in the business of making money from people’s health problems. In MOST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD that’s not how health-care works. We, the people of the US, let the system get rigged this way … we have to fix that. Permanently.

    • Sibbo@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think when you use AI to write the claim and there turn it to be errors even after you checked it, it could still be a case of negligence. Like, not that I think it necessarily should be, but I can see that one could make the argument.

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s free for users, though she might eventually charge for added services like faxing appeals.

    She should sell the home addresses of health insurance executives.

    And golf clubs. She should definitely sell golf clubs.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        3 months ago

        I used to carry what I called a “cracker whacker,” on food deliveries. It was a miniature Louisville Slugger baseball bat. I cut off the last ¼" and used a ⅓" drill bit to create a cavity inside. I then dropped in a 3.5 lb round bar of lead that had about 2" of room on one end to shift back and forth as you swung the bat. I then resealed the bat using the cap I took off, some wood epoxy and 4 finishing nails, just in case.

        That thing would easily have shattered a kneecap if I had ever had to actually use it, rather than just brandishing it.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I think they’re talking about the small souvenir ones. They may still be able to, but as they’re much shorter the force is weaker. Along these lines, it’d be better to add a larger weight towards the end of the bat instead of a rod all the way through. You want as much mass on the far end as possible, and maybe if you care about weight then less mass closer to you.

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              You’re correct. It was one of the small souvenir ones. I added the shifting weight so that it would slide to the far end of the bat as I swung it, drastically increasing angular momentum

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            The mini version of a Louisville Slugger is only 18" long and 2" thick at the thickest and longest points. Having a glove and ball wouldn’t give me any sort of deniability since the thing is so small that I can literally fit it in some of my pockets without it being seen.

            There is no plausible deniability with this thing, I would have better deniability with an old school 6 D-cell Maglight. Hell even a 4 D-cell Maglight would have more mass than my cracker whacker.

            The point of the thing was to make something that wouldn’t set off metal detectors, and would look like a small stick that no one would need to look too closely at.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Unrelated fact, but on the topic of golf clubs, they are pretty slender. I think they may bend if you hit a large object with them.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That’s why Casey Jones traded the golf club for a hockey stick in the first movie. At which point he opened a can of whoop ass all over the foot clan thugs.

  • moktor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Gave it a go. Seems like it has potential. I’m still working through an appeal. My wife ended up in the ER in May and was directly admitted to the hospital for emergency surgery. Ten days afterwards we received a letter from the insurance company saying they had decided it wasn’t medically necessary so they wouldn’t be paying the $67k bill.

    It has been a journey trying to get the appeal together. I had hoped the hospital would at least assist with a letter from one of the many physicians that attended her, but nope. We got laughed at by the surgeons office and told condescendingly "Yeah, that’s not how any of this works. "

    My biggest concern from the AI generated appeals are being able to confirm the statements it is making isn’t just a LLM hallucination. As a lay person, much of the things necessary to make an argument are paywalled out of reach. For example, the insurance company cited the “2023 InterQual criteria for Surgical Conditions” as the reason why they are denying it. The AI appeal that was generated states that per the 2023 InterQual criteria for surgical conditions that hospitalization was medically necessary.

    The only way it seems you can actually get access to InterQual is as a medical provider / payer.

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    … I thought most people actually just appealed most denials???

    I was pretty sure this was already common knowledge?

    90% of the time what happens is that you call up your insurance for some shit like hey my jaw be broken as fuck, and they go “nah thats cosmetic” and then you spend 2 weeks fighting with them until they cave and actually cover it.

    • Buttflapper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      you call up your insurance

      They’re “solving” this problem with less agents or customer service staff, automating the process so you have a robot to deal with that doesn’t ever seem to understand what you’re saying, and can’t get you to the right place. Basically make it as hellish as possible to even get your issue reviewed. Then, they stone wall you and don’t take yes for an answer no matter what

    • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Also looks like a few enclosures on a lower shelf (which could be anything) but technically you can run WAN-exposed servers on most routers, not that it’s advised just possible.

  • Skeezix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    In an ideal world country, we would have a different system, but we don’t live in an ideal world country, so what I’m shooting for here is incremental progress and making the world country suck a little less,”.

    It’s a good article. Don’t let that American exceptionalism creep into it.

      • shinratdr@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        The turn of phrase refers to things that are natural facts, human nature, stuff like that. This one isn’t any of those things, it’s weird to use it to refer to something specific to one country or place.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          “a way of saying or describing something”

          hmm.

          “Rather, Washington’s national security establishment has unthinkingly internalized a Trump-era turn of phrase that is rife with unrealistic expectations and unvetted assumptions.”

          hmmmm.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yeah, honestly the appeal is a standard step in the bottom surgery process in the states. I know one lady who had to explain to her insurer why removal of the penis was a necessary step in her vaginoplasty.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I think the PhD may be honorary in Timbit’s case. Though I suppose if she has a doctorate as well, she may have used him as a rubber duck, and therefore given him credit on her Doctorate Thesis, thereby granting him a doctorate as well? I dunno if that would work.

  • 4oreman
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    101
    ·
    3 months ago

    Gender affirming surgery can be the opposite of health care, supporting what neuro-diversity thinks it needs is often harmful to that individual. For example, you wouldn’t prescribe unlimited sleep for someone with narcolepsy.

    The states has bad healthcare but this is a misleading article, and not necessarily in support of patient health.

    • QuazarOmega
      shield
      A
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      There’s been quite a few reports for this comment, I don’t know if it’s right to remove it, since to me it just comes off as misinformed more than anything and I believe seeing the rebuttals here, coupled with the original comment, is actually more helpful and constructive to the conversation.
      Even so, I’ll let the reporters decide if they still wish to hide this comment.

      EDIT: I’ll give it another 12 hours (ending 09:20) to gather feedback since most haven’t responded, I’ll remove if nobody says otherwise

      • Awa@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        I agree with this analysis of the reported comment, and chose to leave it as it has provoked a constructive conversation. It does not appear to be malicious in nature. I will keep an eye on this post to make sure things remain civil. Thank you.

        • QuazarOmegaA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Yeah, though I am still quite unsure, the majority were for removing: 2 that have reached out again, against none other than you who agreed on keeping, factoring in the initial reporters, 5, minus 1 who I count from before, I think I should still remove.
          I’m actually past the deadline I gave myself but I want to hear what you think first

          • Awa@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I understand that the comment is not based on science and speaks of neurodivergence in a negative manner. By removing the initial comment, I believe it would take away the effectiveness of the commenters below. People vote with the down button and the user can see how unpopular his/her comment is. I don’t wish to overly moderate a community if there is no active harm, especially when others have meaningful sub-comments that can help other casual readers understand the different aspects of what gender affirming care entails, hopefully enlightening others to see it is more than just for trans persons. I respect everyone’s thoughts on the matter, even the ones telling me I am wrong for not removing it. I am still sticking with this decision. Thank you for everyone’s input.

            • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              By removing the initial comment, I believe it would take away the effectiveness of the commenters below.

              This is demonstrably false, bigots thrive on “just asking questions” which is a well documented trolling tactic, and the replies to their comment will remain even if you remove the bigotry.

              I don’t wish to overly moderate a community if there is no active harm,

              But there IS active harm - you leaving these transphobic ableist comments up lets neurodiverse trans people like myself know that you prioritise your need for “neutrality” and “meaningful debate” (which is not happening here, you’re just providing more platform for a bigot to spread their bigotry and misinformation) over our safety and inclusion.

              I respect everyone’s thoughts on the matter, even the ones telling me I am wrong for not removing it. I am still sticking with this decision. Thank you for everyone’s input.

              Obviously you only respect your own opinion then.

              Thanks for making it clear that people like me are not welcome or safe in communities you run, I’ll be avoiding them all, as I’m sure others will.

              But hey, well done you, you defended a bigot!

            • QuazarOmegaA
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I wholeheartedly agree with what you say, I think I’ll leave it be, anyways I’m not against if any other mod steps in to delete, I’m just sorry that I have to go back on my word of being merely a collector of votes, in the end I really do think this is a useful record to keep and it wouldn’t be in me to take action against it by erasing, because I think the better action against it is to let others to see for themselves and learn by seeing how the wrong stance is disproved

      • Farid@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        3 months ago

        Could you please point out how their statement was transphobic? Basically, what they said is just that “gender affirming surgery can sometimes be harmful to health”, and surely that’s just a true statement, not even an opinion, really.

        • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          They are saying gender affirming healthcare is often harmful when the medical literature available says the exact opposite. What motivation do you think they have for misrepresenting available medical knowledge?

          • 4oreman
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’d love to see the double blind white paper that quantitatively shows that.

            The thing is gender affirming surgery is for treating a mental state.

            That means it isn’t qualitatively different than other surgeries to treat mental states

            That doesn’t mean its bad, but it does mean its potentially dangerous, and counter-medicinal, unless carefully vetted and compared against nonsurgical treatments.

          • Farid@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            24
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I didn’t see them say “gender affirming surgery is often harmful”, they said it can be harmful. Regarding “often”, they said that “what neurodivergent people want is often harmful”, which may be wrong, IDK, but is definitely not transphobic.

            As for their motivation, we can’t know. They didn’t explicitly indicated and there’s insufficient info to make assumptions.

            • Tavi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              “Gender affirming surgery can be the opposite of health care, supporting what neuro-diversity thinks it needs is often harmful to that individual. For example, you wouldn’t prescribe unlimited sleep for someone with narcolepsy.”

              … Brushing your teeth can be the opposite of healthcare. sometimes idiots mistake electric toothbrushes for dildos and shove them all the way up their ass.

              1. Gender affirming surgery is healthcare.

              2. The idea that trans is “neuro-diversity” is… huh? Do you think gay people as “neurodivergent”?

              3. Neuro-divergent people often have to advocate for themselves.

              4. Doctors are educated more about the subject than a random lemming and are more suited to making medical decisions. The research says basically nobody regrets it.

              5. Surgery is harmful. Sometimes the doctor has to cut you open. But the benefits are often much greater for the patient.

              6. I’m just JAQin off brooooo, I gotta JAQ offffff, im JAQin offffffff, Im just curious bro, I’m JAQin in my jorts bro, im nearly there bro, I just gotta keep JAQ’in offf brooo I’m nearly there bro you gotta help me finish, au au Im

              • Farid@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                It’s ok, from all the downvotes and lack of genuine answers I already understood that asking questions here isn’t encouraged and I should just treat this as a religion.

                But if anybody eventually decides to sincerely answer my question, I’m still interested in expanding my knowledge.

    • graham1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Here’s your reminder about gender affirming treatments like testosterone pills and jawline surgery and hair transplants: Elon got all three

    • interrobang@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Okay, i happen to actually have narcolepsy & be gender nc, and have a trans partner, i feel like i can speak with some authority on this.

      Gender affirming surgery can be the opposite of health care

      Every surgery can be, but gender affirming care is one of the least regretted surgeries in existence. By opening this way, you frame the argument as different for trans healthcare. Its not.

      We’re also not children. Dont infantilize trans people. We have the same right to make choices others don’t understand, just like cis folks can.

      And narcolepsy is a chronic inability to get delta wave sleep. Extra sleep is absolutely treatment. I can see what your getting at, but you’re choosing examples you don’t understand and misinforming people.

      • 4oreman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think we agree about surgery, which is kinda the point. And because of that trans healthcare is not different than other health care, that’s also the point.

        And I completely agree extra sleep can be used to treat narcolepsy, but it can also make things worse, which is why you need to look at all the options, balence etc.

        Medicine is rarely a simple matter of one treatment for all issues.

    • Pencilnoob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      An opinion that ignores all actual research.

      Gender affirming surgery helps 99% of people who receive it! So sure, technically, there’s a tiny minority who regret it. More people regret Lasik and boob jobs, should we ban those too? Many people regret a night out drinking, how about we ban that too. Drinking causes way more harm than giving estrogen or testosterone pills to folks.

      On the other hand, I like that my friends have the freedom to express themselves any way they want. They aren’t hurting anyone so let’s let them be free to wear whatever clothes they want and take whatever hormones they want.

      So join the side of American freedom and let’s stop policing what clothes people wear or what name they use.

      • 4oreman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s about risk.

        I don’t think many people are seriously suggesting banning gender affirming surgery, I certainly am not.

        But to your point; yes it would be better if more thought, research, alternatives and wholistic health was put into LASIK, or alcohol, or even just food.

        Both individuals and society would benefit, which is why many governments make medicine essentially free.

      • 4oreman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        No but its giving the neuro diversity what it wants, which isn’t always bad, but can worsen an individuals health.

        You wouldn’t prescribe complete isolation as a treatment for social anxiety, except in very extreme and uncommon cases.

      • 4oreman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Kinda, but more dangerous and political

    • BuckWylde@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      As someone with IH/N2 (idiopathic hypersomnia/narcolepsy type 2) extra sleep doesn’t do shit.