The Fight Between Doctors and Insurance Companies Over 'downcoding'
Mood
heated
Sentiment
negative
Category
other
Key topics
The article discusses the conflict between doctors and insurance companies over 'downcoding', where insurers reduce payments for medical services, and the discussion highlights the complexities and frustrations with the US healthcare system.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
55m
Peak period
139
Day 1
Avg / period
32
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 9, 2025 at 8:36 AM EDT
about 2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 9, 2025 at 9:31 AM EDT
55m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
139 comments in Day 1
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 15, 2025 at 8:04 AM EDT
about 1 month ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Edit: in case the reference isn't clear -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_Plus_Drugs
And I think it is a sad state of affairs when the government has been so villified that we have to depend on billionaires for basic public good works.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/were-all-trying-to-find-the-g...
I can quickly see something like this turning in an AI arms race between insurance and the provider with each auto-approving/denying/disputing the other. All the while locking out smaller players because they can't afford the 3rd party disputotron.
Doing nothing but flipping the burden, doctors get paid whatever they invoice and insurance have to claw it back would make a lot of this stonewalling bullshit go away. But with an openly corrupt government paid by insurance it'll never happen.
I recently created an application called EMpowerAI that uses AI to analyze clinical notes and assign appropriate billing codes based on medical complexity or documented time. It also can enhance the Assessment/Plan to justify higher billing codes if the note content supports it.
I presented it at the HRX conference in Atlanta on 9/4/2025 in the top 5 abstracts session. Here is the abstract: https://www.heartrhythmopen.com/article/S2666-5018(25)00291-...
As a Cardiac Electrophysiologist, I optimized the application for cardiology and EP, though it is scalable to other specialties. I am looking for beta testers and would appreciate any feedback. Here is a link to the app:
http://em-billing-assistant.onrender.com/
Leave your name and email here if you would like to receive updates:
The data is a disaster. Turnover is high, errs everywhere. Disputing is the easy part. Hard part is finding the contracts lol.
If insurance companies underpay, doctors should treat that no differently. Don’t appeal through the insurance company itself. Imagine I go to a store and pay less than the full amount at the register, and then the grocery store appeals to ME to decide whether I actually should have paid the correct amount. It’s absurd.
Doctors should treat the insurance companies like anyone else who owes them money and isn’t paying in full on time.
That's not what your quote says. Quite the opposite.
> The issue is the alignment of interests
Exactly. Which is why I think we should be guided by the constitution and not greed.
Not being for profit doesn't mean you don't pay people.
Further, I wonder how the Sixth Amendment works then? So many non-profit people working for... no money?
This "work for no money argument" is so incredibly weak, I had to make sure I quoted the argument so the person wouldn't change it.
This is a semantic punt to the word “reasonable.”
What? The IRS doesn’t regulate wages. They just care about getting their money. If I pay you $10bn a year to yell at my cat, the IRS is fine so long as I pay payroll and you income taxes.
No, "living paycheck to paycheck" means you're spending everything you get each month. There can be all sorts of reasons for that.
> That makes their wages an exchange of equal value, and thus not profitable.
This is true for all profit. If you lend me money and profit off the interest, we've decided between us that the time value of that money is worth that interest, and so it's an exchange of equal value.
I recently did an in-depth sleep study, got a CPAP machine prescribed to me, free replacement filters and replacement tubes + mask for it whenever I need them. I also got xrays and CT scans because of a foot injury around the same time. I also got comprehensive blood tests done.
None of it cost me a penny other than the ~100 euros a month, the doctors and GPs are paid well, the quality of care I received was exceptional, and in the worst case scenario possible I would've only paid 375 euros max.
My mother in law has osteoporosis and a number of other chronic illnesses, so she has to see specialists quite often. The quality of care she receives is similarly excellent to the one I received, and due to her disability her healthcare is partially covered as well.
It's not perfect of course, but it sure does beat all the horror stories you often hear coming from across the pond of people ending up in lifelong medical debt should, God forbid, something happen to them that they realistically have no control over. So I'm sorry, but I don't buy that the for-profit fucked up system you guys have going on over there is the best of the lot, especially if you're an average Joe and not someone from SV earning obscene amounts.
Now, what happens is that the profits have to be kept in check, either via price controls or sufficient competition. It's not hard to argue that the choices made in the US are quite suboptimal, but it's far more of a regulatory problem than purely a matter of people making money. If nobody makes money, there's no healthcare.
Speaking of tax-funded healthcare, did you know that US residents pay more tax towards healthcare than residents of any other country? And in return for that, they don't get any healthcare so they have to pay a second time to buy their healthcare.
[1] https://www.novonordisk.com/content/dam/nncorp/global/en/inv... https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/GSK-PLC-9590199/f...
Edit: I too agree the US healthcare system is flawed, I'm just saying you cannot compare it against EU's results without considering the above fact.
Have they?
i live in neither country but i know i'd rather have cancer in the UK than the US.
That Breaking Bad meme about Walter getting lung cancer in the UK comes to mind.
Uh, what? Other systems have their problems, but they're varying levels of functional, and the health and life expectancy of the populations in most other developed countries is higher than the US, all the while spending a fraction.
Most other developed countries have a mix of public and private insurance and/or delivery, with the better run systems being better rationalized in dealing with costs and having an actual market where it makes sense to form one (eg you can't practically shop around for ER care, but you can for elective or planable services). The French system is held in high regards in particular (though it isn't really replicatable due to their unique civil service setup).
What do you mean failed horrifically? Yes, some countries have long queues. That's because there are actually people getting served. That's just the latency/throughput tradeoff being tilted farther towards throughput - which is what you want, and it's not like people who come in with heart attacks don't get to skip the queue. In America, people get heart attacks and just choose to die so their family won't get bankrupted by an ambulance ride.
Are you possibly getting this information (that healthcare is a horrific failure in every other country) from propaganda sources, instead of information sources?
That's the insurance companies' stance. The work you performed is this and so our agreed upon rate is this.
(That’s because you’re a major, well-known insurer and pay an industry high 35%. The guy who mows the Medicare yard might pay 40 cents on the dollar. The person mowing the Medicaid yard has to file 87 forms to get paid his $6.)
Source: I’ve co-owned doctors offices.
The 12 y/o say ‘no you stink’ and hangs up. Then you send the landscaper a letter saying ‘sorry your peer to peer was denied’
( I know this is exaggerating a bit and made to sound funny but it mostly works like that in healthcare )
Proving this sucks bc smaller practices have horrible staff turnover, the EMRs are dog shit and the contracts are who knows where and in what format.
Recovery is beyond the scope of most small practices.
Its a nightmare where providers are often shorted millions of dollars and that ends up coming out of the patient’s pocket.
Everyone yammering about upcoding on this thread is blissfully clueless.
Seems like a business opportunity. Could probably work very similar to other collections agencies where they either buy the debt for pennies on the dollar or take a percentage of the collected amount.
Who do you think is easier to squeeze the money from? A mega-insurance corporation or your sick grandma?
IMHO, in office care should be more of a time and materials billing than billing based on procedures done. Of course, then the doctors' billing office would aggressively measure time the doctor spent, and the insurance company would suggest the doctor took too long for whatever.
The total industry wide profit numbers aren't relevant at all if you're running a small clinic going up against an insurance provider. Heck even if a single clinic made more money than an insurance provider, it would barely matter - the insurance providers have the power to stop covering your practice and kill it, a clinic does not have any such power over insurance providers.
There are 5 or 6 big insurance companies, maybe 2000 if we count all of the small ones and 400K medical practices. So even by this very simple money=leverage argument, each individual practice has far less money than the insurance company they are dealing with. So if more money = more leverage then these same numbers prove the opposite claim.
So its probably fair to say that the picture isn't as simple as money=leverage.
If a medical practice and an insurance company get into a dispute and one of them decides to not work together, the practice loses say 1/5th-1/10th of its customers, the insurance company loses 1/100000th of its revenue. I call that leverage.
Most insurances won't publish their fee schedules. So doctors don't know what they will pay. So what they do is bill insanely high knowing the insurance will come back with "Nah, we only cover $X". They'll collect $X, then write off the remainder. Because the fear is not getting the maximum money possible. If the doctor would bill $100 and the insurance pays up to $200, then the doctor "lost" $100.
Regardless of how much it actually cost the doctor to provide the service.
It's also why the "cash price" is usually much cheaper, because it's closer to what it costs the doctor to provide the service.
https://www.cms.gov/priorities/healthplan-price-transparency...
It’s good that it’s changed
Healthcare practices want to maximize revenue and push up the “level” of a doctors visit and they can do it with just adding one or two extra little questionnaires or an extra test or two that you might not pay attention to so they can get an extra several hundred dollars a day for billing higher level cases daily.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/20...
They don’t. They want to increase profits by pushing more and more cost to the patient while squeezing providers. The patient is always the loser in this system. One reason is that most patients don’t even have a choice of insurance because their employer picks the insurance that’s best for the employer.
When a provider rips off an insurer it's invisible to the general public.
Also, incidentally, when people talk about fraud in Medicare/Medicaid, the providers are almost always where that happens (yet that's often not pointed out).
Of the multiple times my insurance has declined to cover one thing or another, not once have I ever gotten a reason. The claim is just billed to the patient, directly. I'm then left wondering things like "Hey, your plan documentation says 'preventative care is 100% covered'. This was preventative care. Why is it being declined?"
If I want to know, it's an hour of my time, at least, going back & forth with insurance to learn "Oh, '100% covered' … except in these cases."
17% of the US GDP is healthcare, now obviously there's a lot of nurses and random courier drivers and all sorts of other stuff in there, but they would all need to take some amount of haircut for us to get fleeced less.
The GDP contribution of slavery was ~13% just preceding the civil war and credible moves (i.e. electing Lincoln) to make them take a haircut caused, you know, the civil war.
There is likely no "clean" way to fix this problem other than a century long frog boiling exercise
They're at least as likely to fuck something up (curiously, always in their favor, not yours) as insurers, from what I've seen. And they're almost as unpleasant to deal with—at least they don't generally keep you on hold for literal hours, but it's still not great.
And one of the ugliest public-facing roles in all of American medicine has to be the insurance-vultures whose job is to hover about emergency rooms pestering very-sick people for their billing information. Fucking gross.
Many medical administrations do everything they can to upcode in order to bill for more money.
The whole system is a mess.
And having lived 10 years in Canada and 10 years in the US and used both their healthcare systems quite a bit, I have seen both sides. Let me just say I moved to the US for healthcare 10 years ago and we do not regret it one bit. The US is easy to point and laugh at, but that just comes from ignorance.
My boss wants insurance to be expensive - if I could afford it I would be more willing to quit (retire early).
Finding cheaper services isn't in my interest - I'm not paying any bills anyway.
Insurance companies like the complexity because it means I can't understand the system and so I have to use them.
Doctors don't really care as they just have administrators play the game for them. Once in a while they look at the game and say something, but really this is just they don't understand how the game is played (they shouldn't - they are doctors, they should be looking at medical issues not administrative ones).
This proverb seems to also apply to health insurance and the things they do/don't cover.
Putting routine stuff under the purview of insurance is stupid regardless of context. There are other cheaper, faster, simpler and more transparent ways of doing that.
I'm also not surprised that some providers will try to figure out which codes they can use to get the most revenue. ("Hey, if I do procedure A instead of B, I get paid more, so why would I do B?")
That being said, I also wouldn't be surprised if many of these turn into lawsuits, or ultimately push to revise the whole "fee for service" system.
The more shady the industry, the more everyone involved is shying awaa from sunlight.
They billed my insurance for over a thousand dollars.
Afaik any other country with mandatory health care also puts a ceiling on prices. In germany, there is a price catalog for any service, with only few exceptions, and doctors/hospitals cannot legally charge anything else for these covered services. Now guess what the US does not have, even thought obama had foreign consultants explicitly advising for it.
Health ensureance companies are certainly not the most altruistic but any profit oriented company trying to cut cost where ever possible is hardly a supprise.
Well, we sort of do: we have Medicare's reimbursement rates, which are indeed a price catalog for every service... but only if you're covered by Medicare, of course.
I've heard that price negotiations between private payers and providers are often done with reference to the Medicare rate: "I'll pay you 20% over Medicare for this."
1. Sitting in a Urgent care. They get you in the exam room. You sit there for 15 mins, doctor comes and sees you for 5 mins (mostly rushes the exam), do a blood draw, ask me to sit around while they run the test, doctor leaves, as soon as 45 mins are over the nurse comes over to let me know it’s taking longer to run the test so I can go home and they’ll call when the results are out. A month later charge thousands of dollars to insurance for a 45 min Urgent Care visit that doesn’t cover the lab work.
2. Go to PCP with cold symptoms that haven’t cleared in 10 days. I insist it’s a sinus infection, they send me back with no antibiotics and ask to schedule and online appointment in 2 days. I insist I come in in person, but they schedule an online appointment anyway. Nothing gets better and I see the doctor online after 2 days, they say I’ll have to come in so that they can evaluate me in person and prescribe antibiotics. I go in person, get antibiotics and get cured. Insurance gets charged for 3 separate hour long visits ($750 each and none of them lasted more than 10 mins).
Or it was viral after all and you cleared it on your own.
Doctors who specialize in this have a hard time accurately distinguishing bacterial infections from viral. There’s no reason to trust your own opinion on the matter. It’s too easy to fool yourself.
If doctors prescribed antibiotics to every person who came in insisting they have a bacterial infection, we’d all be in for a bad time.
It was a bacterial infection. That was the correct diagnosis. Flu (viral) doesn’t get progressively worse after 10 days and then get better immediately after a couple doses of antibiotics. My symptoms were in line with a sinus infection (I’ve had them before just like I’ve had flu before) and even if they are not able to diagnose correctly after 10 days, there are other tests that can be prescribed that weren’t and there was absolutely no reason to schedule an online appointment when they clearly knew that they’d need an in person check anyway.
Most cases of bacterial infection will also clear on their own after 2 weeks.
There are no good noninvasive diagnostic tests to distinguish bacterial sinusitis from viral because is the presence of normal nasal flora.
The standard of care is to consider antibiotic treatment after 2 weeks of symptoms for adults and 3 weeks for children.
There’s a reason for these standards:
As of a few years ago physicians were prescribing antibiotics for 80% of cases of sinusitis. Despite the fact that only about 1%-2% of cases actually needed it.
20% of antibiotic prescriptions in the US are for sinus infections.
This is a massive contributor to antibiotic overprescription, which is why the current criteria is 2 weeks of symptoms.
I don’t know what happened in your online visit, but scheduling an online visit and then if your symptoms persisted past 2 weeks prescribing antibiotics during the the online visit would have been entirely appropriate.
The doctor didn’t do anything wrong by asking you to wait a few days.
In addition to residency, my wife is fellowship trained, she’s who PCPs end up sending patients to. She’s basically level 2 tech support (an ENT would be level 3 for this particular problem). She sees the results of this stuff all the time.
And the majority of PCPs vastly overprescribe antibiotics for sinus infections. The vast majority of patients who come in saying they have a sinus infection and asking for antibiotics are wrong.
Doctors are tasked with antibiotic stewardship, but people complain on review sites when they don’t get what they want, so many of them just do it.
On the opacity, I have one informative anecdote. I had a single blood test done awhile back and no one knew if insurance would cover it, or which of the dozen or so billing codes it involved (taking the sample, delivering the sample, testing the sample, etc.) might be covered. It was an expensive test so I spent days bouncing between the doctor's billing team and the insurance company until the settled answer was: No one knows, do the test and insurance will decide. So I did it and insurance denied covering the doctor-recommended test. The salaries involved for all the billing people (and my time) would have covered the cost of the test. </rant>
Oh, someone knew but the doctors office wanted to do the expensive thing and get paid (either by you or the insurance)
Not saying the blood test was unnecessary but we have no idea what communication happened between the doctor and insurance company. Did they possibly recommend a less expensive test and the doctor decided that'd make him less money so he went forward anyway?
This is not just because of the capriciousness of insurance adjusters, but because they have to deal with all the 273 different variations of insurance plans that people who come through their offices might have.
In general, a doctor's primary goal will be to get you good care.
An insurance company's only goal nowadays is to make as much money as possible for as little effort as possible.
How can that be true when their profits are capped on collected premiums? Look up the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rule to see what I'm referring to. If you wanted to squeeze money out of people, health insurance would be the least appealing industry to do that in since you're required to spend 80-85% of premiums on medical care.
So which is it? Insurers unfairly denying reimbursement for what should be valid claims, or insurers unfairly increasing spending on claims so they can increase their profits.
Also, go look at 5, 10, and 15 year returns for the big insurers (UNH/Elevance/CVS/Cigna/Humana/Molina/Centene) if you think health insurance is a good business for earning money. Spoiler alert: they’re less than desirable, stick with SP500.
The other insurers are almost all non profit (various BCBS affiliated insurers, Kaiser, Providence, etc).
This is illustrated by the fact that they aren't actually bumping into the legal MLR limit currently. It would make sense if they don't care about cutting costs because the law doesn't allow them to spend less, but that's not where they are at the moment. If they could cut their medical spending by 1% they could increase their profit by 40%.
I don’t know where you are getting 25% from. See exhibit 2:
https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2024/sep/...
Medical loss ratios float between 80% to 90%, leaving 10% to 20% for operating costs and profit.
Their “product” requires enormous manpower to negotiate contracts, handle customer service, lawyers for the government, and most of all, employ doctors and pharmacists to adjudicate claims.
> It would make sense if they don't care about cutting costs because the law doesn't allow them to spend less, but that's not where they are at the moment.
Of course, and the obvious fact of the matter is insurance prices are heavily regulated and there is competition, so they already have an incentive to control costs in order to control premiums. Which is literally what their customers pay them for, to negotiate with healthcare providers with whom customers usually wouldn’t have leverage against.
>If they could cut their medical spending by 1% they could increase their profit by 40%.
Sure, but in industries like insurance and retail, the low single digit profit margins indicate a more pressing need to survive, rather than increase nominal profit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
The only thing Hollywood accounting does is affect poorly written contracts between businesses.
That's the goal of almost every business and person
However, I could tell the insurance customer service person a code, then they could tell me if it was classified as a covered preventative service.
So I, the insurance company’s customer, Googled medical procedure codes and found some on random PDFs, and checked which ones were covered, and then I asked the doctor to provide me the services for that code.
That is American healthcare.
On the flip side, I also had a doctor’s office try to bill my insurance $25 for towels used to wipe the ultrasound jelly off my wife’s belly. My insurance didn’t pay, so the doctor’s office sent me the bill for what insurance didn’t cover, so I called the doctor’s office and asked why I am being charged $25 for the few pieces of paper towel (not even linen towel), and the receptionist said they would waive the charge.
So, moral of the story is bring your own paper towel roll when you expect to get messy at the doctor’s office.
Malicious compliance engaged.
Start with code “1” and go to “99999999999999999” until they tell you it’s covered.
It's usually less than you think and often worth avoiding the insurance company hassle. Then you can just get reimbursed with your FSA or HSA anyway.
"Guess how much money you're spending in a year on healthcare! But beee caaareful: if you guess too high, YOU LOSE IT"
I still used mine while I still had access to one, but it was grumpy-making and was usually almost more trouble than it was worth.
"To contribute to an HSA, you'll need to be enrolled in an HSA-eligible health plan, also called a high-deductible health plan (HDHP)."
[1]: or so it seems, I tried to figure this out earlier in the year and the data is just lacking in order to make a perfect decision.
There are cases where it doesn't make fiscal sense. One employer covered 1x premium/employee(spouses and kids were full rate).
As someone who does deal with enough medical stuff to clear the deductible (and sometimes the OOP max) on their normal health plan annually, it’s still much more convenient, again because the money is all there at the beginning of the year when the expenses are highest
HSA is funded as you go
And it's a time suck.
If your employer is shitty and doesn’t offer Fidelity HSA, you can also easily rollover the HSA funds to Fidelity every year to avoid the fees.
The coverage for HDHP plans is the same, since it’s the same insurer. The only change is deductible/copay/oop max, which is offset by lower premiums and higher cash flow for younger/healthier/higher earners shouldn’t matter.
Combined with the PITA level, there's no way I'm doing it again. I can't see how it's worth my time. One of these three options is very likely:
a) my income level is low, so every dollar counts, but my marginal tax rate is also low, so spending a ton of extra time on this is not worth saving ~ 15% on taxes for health care
b) my income level is high, so my marginal tax rate is high, but saving 40% of taxes for health care is not worth the time, because health care is not a meaningful amount of income
c) my health care spending is high relative to income, and I can deduct health care costs on my tax return. Then I can deduct a lot more than the FSA will reimburse for, and the records don't need to satisfy a third party, unless I'm audited by the IRS.
* It's only a deduction for income tax. FSAs let you save on FICA as well.
* It's an itemized deduction. You only benefit after your total itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction. Fewer people are itemizing nowadays because the federal standard deduction is large.
* There's a 7.5% of AGI floor: you can only count medical expenses that exceed this fraction of your income.
Why shouldn't the institutions that do this all day and claim it as their special expertise handle all of this? Why should I even be /capable/ of losing money due to my lack of experience with the system?
The money is forfeited back to the employer. There should be a law that money is now taxed and forwarded to the employee in their regular payroll.
This system is designed to screw over regular consumers.
185 more comments available on Hacker News
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.