Gov’t is the Biggest Denier of Health Claims,

[Freedom4all]

Medicare denies 6.85% of the claims it receives, which is higher than any of the other seven large private insurers listed — double the private insurers average for denied claims.

 

[delldude]

So it looks like medicare denies(rations) care........

Isn't that how the government will control their take over of HC?

They won't do that with the new improved healthcare reform......uh......will they?

I mean that data must be flawed......

Andrew Breitbart isn't the same as CBS,NBC,ABC,PBS or CNN...who you trying to fool?

 

[tech2101]

Medicare denies 6.85% of the claims it receives, which is higher than any of the other seven large private insurers listed — double the private insurers average for denied claims.

Of course that chart does not show the people who were just dropped by the PHI's after they filed their first claim. Medicare does not drop anyone.

Also, 26% of those medicare denials were simply due to lack of information filed. (paperwork not completed properly or in full).

You can sure cherry pick those articles. You should actually study them before you post them.

But don't let those facts get in the way of a yellow journalism piece at its finest.

 

[Freedom4all]

Of course that chart does not show the people who were just dropped by the PHI's after they filed their first claim. Medicare does not drop anyone.

Also, 26% of those medicare denials were simply due to lack of information filed. (paperwork not completed properly or in full).

You can sure cherry pick those articles. You should actually study them before you post them.

But don't let those facts get in the way of a yellow journalism piece at its finest.

That's rich you accusing me of cherry picking data to support a view techno. You perfected it down to an art form.

 

[tech2101]

That's rich you accusing me of cherry picking data to support a view techno. You perfected it down to an art form.

How is it that I knew you would simply attack me rather than support the data you posted.

When someone actually takes the time to look past the tag line of the trash piece, they see it for what it is, and you cannot refute it.

 

[Freedom4all]

How is it that I knew you would simply attack me rather than support the data you posted.

When someone actually takes the time to look past the tag line of the trash piece, they see it for what it is, and you cannot refute it.

Where is your data to support yours counsler?

 

[tech2101]

Where is your data to support yours counsler?

QUOTE (tech2101 @ Oct 9 2009, 01:52 PM) *
Of course that chart does not show the people who were just dropped by the PHI's after they filed their first claim. Medicare does not drop anyone.

Also, 26% of those medicare denials were simply due to lack of information filed. (paperwork not completed properly or in full).

The bold part is extrapolated from the link you provided. Like I said, you should really study what you post prior to doing so.

Look at the claim denial codes from the article you provided.

 

[Freedom4all]

The bold part is extrapolated from the link you provided. Like I said, you should really study what you post prior to doing so.

Look at the claim denial codes from the article you provided.

Oh ok, so you think that those numbers look better even with a 26% reduction? It goes from worst to second worst? :blink:

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Oh ok, so you think that those numbers look better even with a 26% reduction? It goes from worst to second worst? :blink:

Also, if you are going to reduce the gov't number by those claims that were "lacking information," then you should also reduce the private insurers' number by those claims that "lacked info."

 

[delldude]

Still at the end of the day the Gov't is one of the worst at denial and short ended care.

Like it is going to get better with this new improved attempt at idiocy.

You guys get on here and tirelessly defend these clowns in DC from both parties...when you going to wake up.......

 

[Freedom4all]

Also, if you are going to reduce the gov't number by those claims that were "lacking information," then you should also reduce the private insurers' number by those claims that "lacked info."

Yes that is an astute observation there lily. Good on ya mate!

So the gov most likely is the biggest loser again!

 

[tech2101]

Also, if you are going to reduce the gov't number by those claims that were "lacking information," then you should also reduce the private insurers' number by those claims that "lacked info."

If you look at the article that was not one of the top reasons for denial in the PHI's.

The main reason for denial for Medicare was code 16:

16
Claim/service lacks information which is needed for adjudication. At least one Remark Code must be provided (may be comprised of either the Remittance Advice Remark Code or NCPDP Reject Reason Code).

The main reason for denial for the PHI's was a code 26 & 27:

26
Expenses incurred prior to coverage.

27
Expenses incurred after coverage terminated.

Also, I see that you have completely rejected the argument that the study left out the PHI's numbers of people who were dropped after filing a claim, or the ones who were rejected due to pre-existing conditions.

You all should really go and read the 16 page article and analyze the data. Did you actually go to the link and read the article prior to posting your response?

I also think that had freedom4all studied the piece, and knowing others would do the same, she would not have parroted the missive.

This is the primary problem with this heath care reform debate. You have trash/yellow journalistic crap being put out by those for and against, with headlines like the one with which freedom4all used to start yet another thread.

All the while the masses buy this garbage based on one radio talk show host repeating it, or some ill-informed blogger regurgitating it on sites like this. The left is as guilty as the right, as is the fringe...

 

[Freedom4all]

If you look at the article that was not one of the top reasons for denial in the PHI's.

The main reason for denial for Medicare was code 16:



The main reason for denial for the PHI's was a code 26 & 27:


Also, I see that you have completely rejected the argument that the study left out the PHI's numbers of people who were dropped after filing a claim, or the ones who were rejected due to pre-existing conditions.

You all should really go and read the 16 page article and analyze the data. Did you actually go to the link and read the article prior to posting your response?

I also think that had freedom4all studied the piece, and knowing others would do the same, she would not have parroted the missive.

This is the primary problem with this heath care reform debate. You have trash/yellow journalistic crap being put out by those for and against, with headlines like the one with which freedom4all used to start yet another thread.

All the while the masses buy this garbage based on one radio talk show host repeating it, or some ill-informed blogger regurgitating it on sites like this. The left is as guilty as the right, as is the fringe...

Easy on the drama there tech-diva. Yes please go read all of it. Quite interesting code that we will all have to get used to is Code 50 (rationing).

These are non-covered services because this is not deemed a ‘medical necessity’ by the payer.

Like a once wise old (delusional comedian) bear used to say....it is what it is.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

If you look at the article that was not one of the top reasons for denial in the PHI's.

The main reason for denial for Medicare was code 16:



The main reason for denial for the PHI's was a code 26 & 27:


Also, I see that you have completely rejected the argument that the study left out the PHI's numbers of people who were dropped after filing a claim, or the ones who were rejected due to pre-existing conditions.

You all should really go and read the 16 page article and analyze the data. Did you actually go to the link and read the article prior to posting your response?

I absolutely read the article and, more importantly, reviewed the study/report done by the American Medial Association. And my response still stands: If you are going to reduce the Medicare's number of denial claims because a significant percentage of those denials were due to "lack of information," then in order to compare them accurately and responsibly, you must also reduce the insurer's claim denials by such similar code percentages.

Further, I am not "arguing" anything as you claim and I certainly have not rejected anything!!! (Where do you even get that from???) I am simply pointing out that you cannot reduce one's denials by something without reducing the others for the exact same thing. That would be like me comparing Peyton Manning now, to Joe Montana now (when he is an old has-been).

I also saw the pre-existing condition denials, and I too see them as enlightening. Compare those as a whole against all the insurers, and I think it is a fair point.