• jarfil@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    9 days ago

    That reads like someone ticking boxes in some software, assembling a reasoning from pre-written sentences in “simple English”. Do they use that kind of tools?

    It’s nice of them if they do it like that. That way the reasoning is better exposed. The reasoning is easier to evaluate. It is easier to spot the point where the reasoning breaks down.

  • ramsorge@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    9 days ago

    While I don’t disagree that this happens frequently, the wording seems to be unrealistic. They would never go into this much detail, in such an unprofessional way. They have form letters that get vetted by legal teams. This would never pass.

    Of course I could be wrong and this seriously is how UH talks.

    • growsomethinggood ()@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 days ago

      It’s been several years, but I’ve received something similar from UHC, maybe only a few sentences shorter. This reads to me like the same bs put through an LLM.

      I did get them to cover their denied service, btw, after faxing over the world’s thinnest-disguised pissy letter of contest to their decision. I’m not an easy person to anger but let me tell you, I saw red when I got that denial.

    • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 days ago

      The unrealistic thing about this is the time frame. For a stay that happened at the end of November, to have a reply in hand two weeks later is unreal.

      • methodicalaspect@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        9 days ago

        With UHC, this is not unrealistic in the slightest.

        I had a follow-up appointment with a specialist I’ve been seeing last Friday. My lab results didn’t show the progress we were expecting, so we decided to attack the issue with a particular medication. This medication is injectable, not a pill like the ones I’ve been taking that have proven to be ineffective, and it’s sold under three names; we discussed all three, and before I left the office, he submitted the prior authorization request.

        Given that I’m insured by UHC, the prior authorization was denied. Not only was it denied, they robo-called me to say so, sent a letter via mail, and put a copy of the letter in PDF form on my account, before I got home from the doctor’s office.

        Not only that, but the section of the letter where they’re supposed to recommend alternate drugs was blank. So basically, “we’re not going to cover that, you can keep suffering, go fuck yourself” in less than 15 minutes.

        UHC is exceedingly efficient at not giving a shit.

        • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 days ago

          Wow that sucks. When the first discussions of Obamacare came up, Republicans should have went with “we don’t need govt death panels, we have death panels at home!”

  • bloup@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    8 days ago

    Let’s just suppose for a second that this really was unnecessary. is it the patient’s fault or the doctor’s? Truly the most insane thing in all of this is this expectation that the patient should be on the hook for unnecessary medical expenses when they quite literally are the least informed of all the parties in the situation.