Your position hinges on the survey not being anonymous. I clicked through and found nothing that claims it was not anonymous, and these things are normally done anonymously for exactly the reason you point out: less honesty.
Do you have anything to back this up or is it simply that holding this belief helps confirm what you already believe to be true?
That links says only a quarter did it because they wanted people to quit, so it suggests that chances are this is not the reason Amazon is doing it…and you’re posting while claiming it factually proves this is their motivation? Pretty deceiving.
Because the CEOs are all more concerned with the commercial real estate market than running their company efficiently.
It’s shocking how many people have honestly bought this. I mean, I’m sure there is some truth to it and maybe somewhere, someone forced people to come back because of some real estate interests… But the CEO of Amazon almost certainly gains to benefit much more from a rise in price of Amazon stock than any real estate they might own. And even if it was the case, I dont think the board would be very happy about it.
It might be the wrong move, and maybe it is being done to get people to quit, but it’s being done because they think it means more money from Amazon.
Especially if your lies are demonizing a group of people who have certainly faced their own struggles.
I love posters who announce they are blocking you. Such a good person that they’ve gotta get that last dig in. Lol
Im not one to say you can never speak ill of the dead, but man to bash someone right after they die among a group of people that likely includes his friends requires a special type of social cluelessness, or straight up being a bad person.
No one in the military
Okay, but is the person still an officer? I mean, it is in the name. The way I see it, as a layman, it is kind of hard to ding the author for getting this wrong when they are technically correct and a laymen would consider them an officer, and the only real complaint is that colloquially military members don’t refer to them as officers.
What am I missing or wrong about?
Your initial framing and argument made it seem otherwise.
Understandable because I said she works for an insurance company. But it was not my intent. No need to apologize for this.
It is natural to assume that you did not believe the same standard applied to reviewing doctors at Medicare since you’ve been arguing the same.
I disagree that it’s natural. I said doctors, not just doctors providing care (which my wife is still one of, btw). I suspect that this is an issue of viewing it as too black and white … so because I said one “side” is not perfect…well I must then think the other “side” is perfect.
I see no evidence that these denials are saving more money than is being wasted fighting them.
This is a different question than the one I’m trying to answer. I haven’t seen the books or analysis, so I don’t know whether it is more efficient. However, just peripherally, even i can see how much waste there is an even as a laymen it’s easy for me to understand that so many of the things she sees are just blatantly not medically necessary.
Doctors are notoriously bad at documentation.
Times they are a changing. Them not justifying why they are doing something is no longer adequate, and wont be adequate even if (maybe even especially if) we move to universal health care.
Medicare or Medicare Advantage?
It’s Medicare. She has a friend who works on the private insurance side of the company and she always makes fun of him for it.
If it is a covered item or procedure, the claim is not fraudulent, and the insurance provider has not met the patient to perform any exam, then going off of notes and comparing with best practices is insufficient to deny a claim.
The metric is based on medical necessity, and it’s standard for Medicare to deny claims for things that are not medically necessary. Again, if the doctor thinks it is medically necessary, they can appeal the decision and make their case, and that happens frequently.
This may surprise you, but the doctors hired by insurance are not magically better than the ones treating the patient.
I’ve already stated that I know doctors are not perfect and omniscient, so I’m not sure why you would imply I think otherwise. Although, this isn’t the first time you’ve implied I think the opposite of what I’ve explicitly stated. Is this going to be a trend?
Medicare is the most efficient health insurance system in America.
Are you under the impression that medicare does not do chart review nor deny claims? I assure you this is incorrect because, the irony being, my wife works on the medicare side of chart review.
As I’ve been saying, this doesn’t go away, nor should it, if we move to universal health care. Something I strongly support, btw, I dislike insurance companies as much as you do. The difference between you and me is that I recognize that doctors are not infallible and omniscient and can make mistakes.
If private insurance is so great, why are they more inefficient with worse outcomes?
I started off very clearly and explicitly saying Im a strong supporter of universal healthcare. Why do you think you came to the conclusion that I think private insurance is so great?
she has no basis
You’re just wrong. I assume it because you have no medical experience and don’t have any knowledge of how any of this works, but doctors are supposed to take good notes throughout their care that go into charts. This is done so any doctor, especially if we are talking about in a hospital, can step in and read what has been done, why it was done, so they know what they should do next. There are also standards of care for certain conditions that have been established and reviewed by many other doctors.
So she can absolutely read these charts and the standards of care and have a very good basis for what is and what is not necessary. Is it 100%? Of course not, which is why doctors and patients can appeal. But if they can’t justify why it is medically necessary, which was certainly the case here and it was clearly just a case of quality of life, then it makes sense not to waste resources…this would be true with or without private medical insurance.
Agreed. But as I pointed out, even without insurance companies, there would still be standards of care and there would still be people reviewing charts to make sure doctors aren’t overdoing things and wasting resources.
Doctors can, and often do, request consults where they make their case. My wife will occasionally change her mind after hearing from the doctor on why they think it is necessary. She will often even reach out to the doctor if she is unsure about the outcome.
In this case the doctor just yelled at her and didn’t make a case at all.
These are different questions, I was responding to the implicit claim that it’s ridiculous that someone other than a doctor could understand what is medically necessary.
Although one thing my wife has expressed shock about since taking this role is how much waste there is, and how much doctors prescribe that is just clearly not medically necessary.
I notice how you didn’t actually address my point all, just reiterated the claim.
I don’t believe this happens that often, but what happens in the case that a doctor prescribes completely unnecessary procedures and visits, which makes them rich. Still the insurance company shouldn’t do anything?
I know I’ll be hated for this, but my wife works for an insurance company, as a doctor, doing chart review. She was always very responsible as a doctor, but the shit she talks about that doctors prescribe is ridiculous.
One case that sticks with me (not even the most egregious, but because of the berating she got from the doctor and the patient), the patient needed a special car seat, which they approved. The doctor also prescribed a 200 dollar car seat cover. Now the seat already comes with a removable and washable cover, this additional one would just make it easier to remove and wash. It was denied as not medically necessary, which it clearly is not. The doctor demanded a consult and then yelled at her the whole time. The patient also called her and yelled at her.
Im a firm supporter of universal healthcare, but the idea that doctors never do ridiculously unnecessary shit, regardless of the reason, requires one to be completely ignorant of how any of this actually works. And so, even with universal health care, some bureaucrat stepping in to determine if a doctor made the right decision would absolutely still be necessary.
Their framing of how AI works is grossly inaccurate. I just corrected that.
I’m with you. I’m a Senior software engineer and copilot/chatgpt have all but completely replaced me googling stuff, and replaced 90% of the time I’ve spent writing the code for simple tasks I want to automate. I’m regularly shocked at how often copilot will accurately auto complete whole methods for me. I’ve even had it generate a whole child class near perfectly, although this is likely primarily due to being very consistent with my naming.
At the very least it’s an extremely valuable tool that every programmer should get comfortable with. And the tech is just in it’s baby form. I’m glad I’m learning how to use it now instead of pooh-poohing it.
I never said anything about leaving ai unregulated. I never said anything about being frustrated. And its likely you asking for laws to be changed, not me.
I’m not even sure you’re responding to my post.
Simply reading the article would reveal how ludicrously incorrect your argument is.