2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Two more comments.  

One of the insurance companies that recently reduced reimbursement for me by 20% just hired a friend of mine, who after two weeks of work received a large year-end bonus.

I am for medicare for all.  Government exists to provide that which is too big for any other entity to provide (common defense, roads, etc.)...health insurance falls into that category.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I have been a psychologist for 9 years and have watched reimbursement levels drop 25%.  The saving belongs to the insurance company.  I also notice that deductibles and barriers (required authorizations and treatment plans) have increase dramatically. While everyone needs to share in cost reductions and I am willing to, the issue is the lack of checks and balances. Psychologists cannot band together and push back when insurance companies just decide to lower reimbursement rates.  Their only recourse is to drop off the panel.  Then consumers wonder why their favorite therapist doesn't take their insurance.  Experienced therapists won't tolerate abusive practices for long.  

There is a need for all voices/stakeholders to be at the table of reform.  I fear that insurance companies and big pharma are well represented at the table.  I'm not sure who is watching out for the smaller interests.

Cheryl

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I am a Kaiser patient and have been very pleased with every aspect except the company in Texas that can't seem to credit my payments correctly (it's even on automatic payment.)

I like that my records can be seen by every Dr. I see; that I get x-rays and tests and have been immediately returned to the Dr. for response;  I know exactly what my visits will cost; they have so many programs for health encouragement; I can email the Dr., get test results online. They don't mind that I get PX's at Wal-Mart because they are much cheaper.  I'd be happy to have them in charge of national healthcare as I believe they emphasize the right things.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

I've just joined this conversation so may have missed past concerns, but is anyone talking about the games that insurance companies play with denying claims?  I am a psychologist and could write a book about the ever-evolving procedures that become the basis for denials.  One example is the company that requires same-day authorization for new patients.  Evening appts. are popular for therapy so calling after a client leaves at 8 or 9 PM is an arbitrary burden.  Some rules are never communicated ("family therapy is not covered") but are denied with no recourse.  My office calls the insurance company for every client at the beginning and we have to continually increase our proactive question list.   We also get caught between the company that authorizes and the one that pays with mutually exclusive rules and communications. This not only a huge waste, but is surely inappropriate in a society that prides itself on high ideals, including good healthcare.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context