Oh, the establishment press will just loooooove this -- not.
From BigGovernment.com (HT Mark Levin over the airwaves this evening):
Beverly Gossage, Research Fellow for Show-Me Institute and founder of HSA Benefits Consulting wondered which insurance companies rejected the most claims. She found her answer in the AMA’s own 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card (fairly large PDF).
I'm curious. Was it Aetna? Humana?
A chart showing the major carriers and how Medicare compared to them in the study follows:

Well, well.
The Medicare denial rate found in the study was, on a weighted average basis, roughly 1.7 times that of all of the private carriers combined (99,025 divided by 2,447,216 is 4.05%; 6.85% divided by 4.05% =1.69).
You would think Medicare's sheer size might enable it to have smoother procedures with its providers that would enable it to turn down a lower percentage of claims. But no, this is the government we're talking about.
So who's the most "heartless" now? And why should Americans accept the idea of gradually being forced into a government-run system when, based on documented government experience, they will be more likely to see their claims denied?
And I didn't even get to the idea of refusals to treat in the first place, something that is present to some degree in virtually every state-run system, but is currently against the law in hospital emergency rooms in the U.S.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
They want people to die.
October 5, 2009 - 23:08 ET by sevenToo bad they are not a big corporation funded plan. They are funded by direct employee withholdings.
Didn't Obama talk about comparison charts?
October 5, 2009 - 23:24 ET by legacyrepublicanDidn't Obama talk about comparison charts? Comparing one company to another is not just about price. Clearly Medicare and Aetna would fail while UHC would be the prize winner.
So what is UHC doing right that the others are not.
Pretty much guts the
October 5, 2009 - 23:33 ET by PewahPretty much guts the administration's attempts to demonize the private insurers as heartless gougers of the people.
Like every accountant knows,
October 6, 2009 - 00:32 ET by ConservativeRexLike every accountant knows, liars figure, but figures don't lie. The question is, what is the strategy to get this in front of the state run media so they can't miss seeing it. I know you have to cattle prod the hell out of them to get any action, but even they can't be too blind to see this. Then again.
Call Glenn Beck!!
October 6, 2009 - 07:18 ET by kangarooCall Glenn Beck!!
Folks, you have a couple of
October 6, 2009 - 00:51 ET by jdhawkFolks, you have a couple of weeks until the congress gets done fiddling with various versions of the healthcare bill and then we all suffer the consequences. Please write, call, and/or e-mail your elected representatives and tell them to vote NO on obamacare.
Remember, obamacare will make you sick; it may even kill you!
I suspect you would find
October 6, 2009 - 00:56 ET by Captain RepusI suspect you would find that the only part of Medicare that bucks this claim rejection percentage is the Medicare Advantage plan .... you know, the one that Obammy is dead set on shutting down.
I have been on the Advantage program for 2 years now and, even though it is basically an HMO plan, the level of service and care provided by this plan is outstanding. I can assure you that 100% of seniors on an Advantage plan will definitely be voting against the dimocrat candidates for the next several election cycles if they go along with Barack Oprompter and his worthless ideas.
I agree,
October 6, 2009 - 11:37 ET by olddog3006Medicare Advantage plans are very good. My dad is covered with Healthnet here in Arizona. He recently racked up over $300,000 in bills when he was in ICU last spring. His out of pocket expense; a $200 copay for the ambulance, and a $200 copay for the hospital admission. If he just had regular Medicare his out of pocket would have been thousands of dollars.
FACTS ARE THERE TO SEE
October 6, 2009 - 00:59 ET by ptsonSo when the media fails to do its job and point out "inaccurate statements" by any president, is it wrong to point out to that president that "YOU LIE!" ????????????????? One question mark for each lie in Obama's speach, um so far...
Please leave my wife alone...
October 6, 2009 - 02:45 ET by beauxdogMy wife works for a company that handles Medicare Part B and C for nursing homes. She has a job because dealing with Medicare is the most frustrating and illogical situation any business can ever find itself in. She has even got so frustrated that she called a Medicare Supervisor the "B" word on the phone... and she was in the right. These people appear to be trained to deny and delay payment of claims as much as possible... people really can't be as stupid as they appear to be.
Government run healthcare will really be a jobs package. People will pay good money to avoid having to deal with idiots.
Beauxdog
"See me... feel me... touch me... heal me..." Tommy - The Who (or is it BHO?)
"Listening to you, I get the music. Gazing at you, I get the heat. Following you, I climb the mountains. I get excitement at your feet." Tommy - The Who (or is it the MSM?)
Oh Joy!!
October 6, 2009 - 05:06 ET by DoktorFrankenI just can't wait to be forced into buying health care I can't afford that will give me health care I can't survive.
oh my...
October 6, 2009 - 05:20 ET by sarainitalyfab find!
I can't wait to write this up! I love this site.
This data needs to be put
October 6, 2009 - 06:00 ET by HockeyKidThis data needs to be put on a simple graph, and carried on big signs to all of Biden's appearances, just for when he continually trots out Medicare and Social Security as the shining examples of government success.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Medicare is beginning to
October 6, 2009 - 06:48 ET by nadadhimmiMedicare is beginning to expand a program of retroactive audits to recover fairly provided and paid for Dr. services. They want money back from yrs ago and couch it under the mantle of "fraud". To them, fraud is if a provider forgets to check some insignificant box on a form the IRS can't even figure out. This will further disgust Dr's and cause even more to quit practice. People have no idea the pressure under which the health care system is operating, and it is starting to crack because Obama wants it to crack, and fail to establish a new Castro like "health service" with coerced Dr's working at the control and pleasure of the Government.
Really?
October 6, 2009 - 08:20 ET by frankmerIsn't this what you guys have been sceaming about for years, that there's too much fraud in Medicare? Now their doing something to control the level of it and you're bitching about it. Make up your mind.
Wait, there's more:
October 6, 2009 - 07:12 ET by BKeyserIt's not just that the largest percentage of denials came from Medicare, but the even more glaring number in my view is that of 574,591 total denials, 475,566 were from medicare! That's nearly 83% of all denials of service requested in the US through the major insurers from March 2007 to March 2008.
Additionally, of the 475k records with denial codes, 79,006 contained the N115 and/or the M25 denial code. The N115 code denies service based on the findings from a Local Medical Review Policy (LMRP) or Local Coverage Determination (LCD). The M25 code is denial based on substantiated need for service. These couldn't be considered....rationing, could they?
This was not a comprehensive look at every claim
October 6, 2009 - 09:00 ET by Tom BlumerThe numbers are way too small for that.
Tom?
October 6, 2009 - 10:24 ET by BKeyserNot sure what you mean by that. Are you saying there were claims denied by other insurance compaines not included in the survey and therefor the Medicare denials were not 83% of the total? I thought that could be the case, but if so, why were the other insurance companies not listed in the report?
I'm saying that the raw numbers of claims ....
October 6, 2009 - 15:04 ET by Tom Blumer.... are way lower than the total number of claims probably filed.
I would expect that 300 million Americans file a lot more than 9.4 million claims. As long as these were valid, random samples, the number of claims seen should be big enough to draw a valid conclusion about the RATE of claim rejection, which is THE only topic of the post.
Pardon me Tom, but this needs clarification/
October 6, 2009 - 07:13 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltFirst, I'm no fan of Medicare, but you're misrepresenting the facts here, and it does our side no good when we get nailed on an error such as this:
"The Medicare denial rate found in the study was roughly double that of all of the private carriers combined."
Correct me if I'm missing something here, but the rate of denials was 6.85%, about equal to Aetna's rate, and yes, considerably higher than most, and more than double the rate of some, but your statement doesn't hold water. You can't combine rates as I think you're doing here.
Sure I can
October 6, 2009 - 09:09 ET by Tom BlumerThe government's reject rate was 6.85%.
The combined rejection rate of the others was 4.05%, ranging from Aetna's poor 6.8% to UHC's much better 2.8%.
What's wrong with saying that?
I did change "roughly double" to "roughly 1.7," but the central point stands, and as adjusted, it doesn't misrepresent anything.
"Combined" does not mean "averaged" in common
October 6, 2009 - 11:54 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltparlance, nor in dictionary definitions of the word. It means added together. "Outsells all other brands combined." Or from a recent Mediabistro.com ratings measure: "In the just-finished third quarter, Fox News beat CNN and MSNBC combined in Total Viewers..."
It's just the misuse of the word that had me thinking you were making a different point.
I'm all for precision ....
October 6, 2009 - 16:26 ET by Tom Blumer.... so thanks for the nudge.
Rate of denials ... average and percentage of total
October 6, 2009 - 10:15 ET by dabboAssuming I did my math correctly, the AVERAGE rate of denials was 4.25% (71,824 out of 1,173,206), but 6.12% (574,591 out of 9,385,647) of all claims were denied. Ex- Medicare, the AVERAGE drops to 3.88% (14,146 out of 349,602), and the % of claims denied drops to 4.05% (99,025 out of 2,447,216). So, Medicare denies at roughly 2x the rate of the private companies average rate of denials (3.88%). Further, Medicare denies claims at 1.6x the average for ALL payers.
The only valid weighted-average you cited ...
October 6, 2009 - 10:24 ET by Tom Blumer... is the 4.05%.
I think adding up the raw averages without weighting is not as valid a comparison. To be clear, I have noted that my 1.7x is based on a weighted average.
How about this?
October 6, 2009 - 10:23 ET by JPR1The government run programs denial rate is 76% higher than the average rate of the seven major private insurers. Simple, accurate and revealing. (6.85/3.89=1.76)
Or, conversely:
The average denial rate of the seven major private insurers is only 57% of that created by the debacle run by the lunkheads who get their paychecks from the federal government. (3.89/6.85=.57)
Now imagine that there is no competition
October 6, 2009 - 07:23 ET by c5thenUnder the guise of "increasing competition" they liberals want to institute a "government option" or single payer plan whereby all the taxpayers of the US pay for the medical services of everybody in the government plan. So to those 47% of taxpayers who this year will owe no income tax, their health care will be free, paid for by the other 53% who do pay income tax.
Who will opt for paying an aditional $400-$500 a month for a private plan?
Then the denial rate will jump to 12%, or 15% or even higher. That is how you save money in a government program. You deny payment and delay the outlay of as much $$ as possible with the goal of pushing it into the next fiscal year.
Throw 'da bums out!!!
no incumbent re-elected, with very few exceptions!
www.loyaltoliberty.com
Does it matter?
October 6, 2009 - 07:36 ET by okiehawk44Medicare and other insurance is not a big problem for elites and they believe rightly or not that good doctors and hospitals will always be available to them.
Remember, Fidel Castro was at death's door until the regime had a doctor from Spain fly to Cuba to treat the Great One. Fidel got the best of the best Cuban medicine but past the clinic level it stinks -- then again it's only for the masses.
You and I are the "masses" folks.
Get rid of all the elected elites in the next election and that means those of you in Massachusetts and Maine and California too unless the Museum of Modern Pork down the street is too important to you.
and those in the controlling elite know this and also know they can go to Spain, Switzerland or elsewhere or have good care brought to them.
Percentage though...
October 6, 2009 - 07:59 ET by OuttaMyWay2 thoughts... Aetna is also at 6.80%, so statiscally it is the same, and does Medicare have to accept everyone, so then that would drive up the number of denied policies.
I do agree that UHC seems to be the best policy by far, since they are second to the number of count of records being processed.
It would be interesting to see how many subscribers each one had. That would show how many claims per member they averaged.
You see...
October 6, 2009 - 08:15 ET by frankmerIf the writer told us all of the information we needed to know to prove his point has any validity, then he wouldn't be able to spin the information to make his point.
Without the number of subscribers and the percentage of claims denied on that basis, these numbers mean nothing. I know that, you know that and he knows that!
the report
October 6, 2009 - 09:54 ET by sarainitalyIf you go to the actual report you can get all the answers.
Do all three of you believe
October 6, 2009 - 09:58 ET by KarmaDo all three of you believe the percentage of denials per subscriber is necessary to add any meaning to the figures stated?
Hi. My name is John Q. Public, but some just call me racist.
You know you're right. I
October 6, 2009 - 16:28 ET by frankmerYou know you're right. I had a chance to go back through and look at the numbers and found that remark code "16" accounted for 27.8% of the Medicare denials. That's a little more significant. According to the report remark code 16 is defined as:
"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."
So bascially, just more than a quarter of the Medicare denials were due to improper paper work. While this could certainly be seen as an inefficiency in the system, take the 16s out and Medicare isn't looking so bad after all, about 4.95%. I didn't have time to go through and make this updated calculation for all of the companies, but Medicare had, by far, the largest number of 16s reported. Only one other company broke 10%.
Keep going.
October 6, 2009 - 21:33 ET by KarmaNow, how many of the "16's" were rejected even after the required information was provided? By equal percentages, not numbers, could you venture a guess as to the outcomes of the private insurances? Have you looked into the differences between what each insurance entity takes in as to pays out per subscriber, in percentages, over the course of 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 60 years?
Hi. My name is John Q. Public, but some just call me racist.
Premiums?
October 6, 2009 - 09:45 ET by KarmaAccepting "everyone" should not drive up the percentage of denials per claim since "everyone" is also paying premiums. You were never forced to pay premiums to Aetna.
Hi. My name is John Q. Public, but some just call me racist.
what kind of denials are they talking about?
October 6, 2009 - 08:17 ET by ohiochiliAs someone who has worked on both sides of the coin (medical provider of durable medical equipment and health insurance administrator) I wonder if they included in their figures the claims denied due to mistakes? Unscientifically, I would say that in both jobs, the claims that came across my desk that were denied due to mistakes in coding, diagnosis, even billed to the wrong insurance company were about 4 out of every 10. Medicare is a nightmare to bill and collect. As for mistakes on private insurance claims, when I found a simple mistake, for example, a doctor billing a flu shot under the wrong diagnosis, a simple call from me to the provider office to correct the error would have been more efficient than denying the claim. Federal law prohibited me from doing that. Instead, the claim is denied, and most likely, the doctor sent the insured the full bill since they probably don't hire specialists to research why claims are denied or they figure that is your job.
One other thing...employer health insurance coverage benefits are laid out by the employer who hires the insurance company as an administrator for their policy. If your health insurance denies a service, it is because your employer chose not to include it on your plan. Employers negotiate price and coverage every year with their insurance administrators. The empty heads in Washington don't seem to understand this, or they choose to ignore it. Do people really think that their employers dial up Aetna or Cigna and say 'We have x amount of dollars for employee health coverage this year...write us up a plan and we'll sign it.' Its just like buying auto insurance...you decide what coverage you want to pay for. Same with your employer. Just one little thing more...if you get a final denial from your insurance on a treatment after appeal, the final decision comes from your employer.
Actually, that is only
October 6, 2009 - 09:58 ET by jdhawkActually, that is only partly true. One of the problems with the current system is mandates. Mandates can come from your local, county, state, and federal levels. Regardless of where they come from, each state orchestrates them. So, if your company is in 50 states, then they have 50 plans they have to contract for, pay for and help administer. Each with different mandates that must be followed for that plan no matter what insurance plan(s) is/are eventually contracted for by the company you work for.
So, don't want to pay for or have your employer pay for sex change operations? No problem. But, you will have to quit your San Franciso city job. The health care plan that city provides for their employees has that in the plan! While that is an extreme example, there are may others throughout our nation that border on the bizarre. No matter, you or your employer pay for it all!
Where I work, my employer pays only part of the health care bill. It offers several different plans from the basic to the deluxe. You choose, but the amount that it pays is set. For a family of four, the deluxe plan will cost about $600 a month. The company pays nearly a like amount. So, the total cost is about $15k per year. Want the basic? Pay about half that amount for a family of four.
First let me say welcome to
October 6, 2009 - 16:20 ET by stratmanFirst let me say welcome to NewsBusters. Your name, "ohiochilli" is fantastic. Even better, I will be having chilli tomorrow once it is all cooked up!
Second, interesting post that touches on one of my pet peeves - claim denials and the reasons for the denial. More accurately, the explanation, or not, from the insurer as to why the claim was denied.
The implication here, and the reality even if not by your specific inference, is that insurers kick back rejected claims with non-specific, ambiguous comments. Something as innocuous as print that intersects or falls below a line will cause a denial even if the data is correct.
I'm all for reasonable efficiencies and correctness in filling out claims. Clean claims mean less hassles and swifter payment. But rejected claims without meaningful cause listed is ridiculous and a tool of insurers to set up road blocks to the physician to resubmit successfully and be paid appropriately.
I heard 10-12 years ago that insurers predict/count on up to 25% of kicked back claims will never be resolved. The physician stops refilling, if they do at all, becuase the costs in labor and material can quickly supercede the original amount billed. The result is the insurer pockets the money that is rightfully due the physician.
What are your thoughts and experiences on this matter?
Medicare is the only option
October 6, 2009 - 09:02 ET by richb313I keep hearing from proponents of Obamacare that the justification for the Public Option is the success of Medicare. Let me say a few things about that. The reason Seniors are so woried about losing Medicare Benifits is that there is no alternative. There is no practical private Insurance available to replace Medicare. It does not exist because Medicare does exist. Before Medicare it was possible to get Hospitalization Insurance to the end of life, no longer. Once Medicare became law that market was no longer available because of the FORCED enrollment into Medicare. The same will happen if ANY Public Option is allowed to become law. The only ones who will be able to get Insurance will be the wealthy individuals who could have financed thier own Medical Care to begin with.
RACISTS!
October 6, 2009 - 10:08 ET by wizardjrYou're just doing this because the President is African-American(-Indonesian)
[/sarc]
Darn!!
October 6, 2009 - 17:40 ET by DoktorFrankenWe've been found out and exposed!!!
And we don't cotton any tiny wizard stuff, neither!!
;-)
Killer Data
October 6, 2009 - 10:26 ET by slickwillie2001This is killer data, because it puts the lie to the democratics' talking point that the big mean insurance companies are shafting 'the folks' and that the government will fix that. Also consider that the Bamster wants to cut Medicare in a big way in order to give medical care to others, so Medicare's rejection rate will climb significantly under Obamacare.
The AETNA comparison is irrelevant; even if all the rejection rates were the same, it would point out that government does no better.
how much play will-
October 6, 2009 - 11:03 ET by JIMMY1660these facts and figures get. the media will ignore and we shall get hi jacked health care shoved down our throats
BHO- THE PROGRESSIVE PIRATE