Not Hacker News Logo

Not

Hacker

News!

Home
Hiring
Products
Companies
Discussion
Q&A
Users
Not Hacker News Logo

Not

Hacker

News!

AI-observed conversations & context

Daily AI-observed summaries, trends, and audience signals pulled from Hacker News so you can see the conversation before it hits your feed.

LiveBeta

Explore

  • Home
  • Hiring
  • Products
  • Companies
  • Discussion
  • Q&A

Resources

  • Visit Hacker News
  • HN API
  • Modal cronjobs
  • Meta Llama

Briefings

Inbox recaps on the loudest debates & under-the-radar launches.

Connect

© 2025 Not Hacker News! — independent Hacker News companion.

Not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator. We simply enrich the public API with analytics.

Not Hacker News Logo

Not

Hacker

News!

Home
Hiring
Products
Companies
Discussion
Q&A
Users
  1. Home
  2. /Discussion
  3. /The fight between doctors and insurance companies over 'downcoding'
  1. Home
  2. /Discussion
  3. /The fight between doctors and insurance companies over 'downcoding'
Last activity about 1 month agoPosted Oct 9, 2025 at 8:36 AM EDT

The Fight Between Doctors and Insurance Companies Over 'downcoding'

ceejayoz
242 points
345 comments

Mood

heated

Sentiment

negative

Category

other

Key topics

Healthcare
Insurance
Billing Practices
Debate intensity85/100

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 discussion

First comment

55m

Peak period

139

Day 1

Avg / period

32

Comment distribution160 data points
Loading chart...

Based on 160 loaded comments

Key moments

  1. 01Story posted

    Oct 9, 2025 at 8:36 AM EDT

    about 2 months ago

    Step 01
  2. 02First comment

    Oct 9, 2025 at 9:31 AM EDT

    55m after posting

    Step 02
  3. 03Peak activity

    139 comments in Day 1

    Hottest window of the conversation

    Step 03
  4. 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

Discussion (345 comments)
Showing 160 comments of 345
coleca
about 2 months ago
8 replies
Good startup idea would be to work with medical practices to use AI to automate the disputing of the "downcoding" by insurers.
ActionHank
about 2 months ago
1 reply
The business will be very quickly bought up to kill the product.
daveguy
about 2 months ago
1 reply
If they can afford it. What's Mark Cuban been up to lately?

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.

ceejayozAuthor
about 2 months ago
> the government has been so villified that we have to depend on billionaires

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/were-all-trying-to-find-the-g...

cogman10
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Man this is a hellscape.

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.

actionfromafar
about 2 months ago
In fact, you could take out an insurance which will help with the Disputotron costs, should they arise. No you can't know the costs in advance.
vjvjvjvjghv
about 2 months ago
The result will be that doctor AIs will be fighting insurer AIs and the loser will be the patient. As always.
Spivak
about 2 months ago
You would have to leverage the law (if you have one) that involves the state resolving the dispute because otherwise the automated disputes would probably be dropped on the floor. The insurance company has the leverage because they're actually in possession of the money and the contract that gives them stupidly high discretion on how much to pay out.

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.

abrichvi85
about 2 months ago
I already have a solution to the downcoding practices of these health insurance carriers.

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:

https://forms.gle/MoVhdna81pq9F45NA

elwebmaster
about 2 months ago
Already working on this, let's connect if you are interested: https://forms.gle/cxQZg5Q27PsT65d97
tantalor
about 2 months ago
Hate it, thanks
pragmatic
about 2 months ago
Its a terrible business.

The data is a disaster. Turnover is high, errs everywhere. Disputing is the easy part. Hard part is finding the contracts lol.

Apreche
about 2 months ago
9 replies
If someone invoices me, and I don’t pay the full amount in a timely manner, what do you think will happen? Late fees, reports to credit bureaus, collections agencies hounding me, maybe even lawsuits?

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.

hn_go_brrrrr
about 2 months ago
1 reply
I was thinking the same thing. Would it be permissible to bring each underpayment to small claims court as a separate case? If enough doctors did this, it would very quickly be a legal DDoS attack, like we've seen happen with mandatory arbitration.
nradov
about 2 months ago
When providers join payer networks they generally waive their right to sue over issues like this.
some_random
about 2 months ago
1 reply
So what should happen when Docs lie about what procedures they did? Because it happens quite frequently and for some reason is always left out of these discussions.
Pet_Ant
about 2 months ago
3 replies
Man, it's almost like healthcare and human lives shouldn't be for profit...
pastor_williams
about 2 months ago
1 reply
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
jasonlotito
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Exactly. Glad you agree it shouldn't be for profit, either.
pastor_williams
about 2 months ago
2 replies
I have no problem with it being for profit. The issue is the alignment of interests and the thumb on the scales by government and vested interests. If health insurance worked like car insurance I think we'd be in a better state.
kbelder
about 2 months ago
1 reply
I wish health care worked like veterinary care. Except, now, veterinary care is becoming more like human health care, and it sucks.
nocoiner
about 2 months ago
Vets are really the most amazing doctors and I hate to see what is happening to their industry. Hopefully in exchange for dealing with the bullshit of human health care, at least maybe the money is getting a little better for them (a lot of them are just criminally underpaid).
jasonlotito
about 1 month ago
> I have no problem with it being for profit.

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.

philipallstar
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Find some doctors, nurses, researchers, manufacturers etc etc who will work for no money and we can remove money from the problem.
jasonlotito
about 2 months ago
1 reply
> Find some doctors, nurses, researchers, manufacturers etc etc who will work for no money and we can remove money from the problem.

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.

philipallstar
about 2 months ago
3 replies
Eventually everyone works for profit if they get paid. Spending time only is pure profit in money.
iamnothere
about 2 months ago
3 replies
A reasonable wage or salary isn’t usually considered “profit” in a legal sense. This is why nonprofits can still pay employees. Any money that is left over after costs (including wages/salaries) needs to be reinvested, spent on the organizational mission, or held for future use, not distributed through dividends or other distributions as in a for-profit enterprise.
JumpCrisscross
about 2 months ago
1 reply
> reasonable wage or salary isn’t usually considered “profit” in a legal sense

This is a semantic punt to the word “reasonable.”

iamnothere
about 2 months ago
1 reply
The IRS has some guidelines that they use to decide what is “reasonable” but they don’t give out whatever actual formula or process they use to determine this. It’s supposed to be based on industry averages (more or less) but in reality it’s hard to determine what exactly that means. Generally you are “safe” paying in an industry average range, but if outside that range you need legal and accounting support to back up your own assessment.
JumpCrisscross
about 2 months ago
> you are “safe” paying in an industry average range, but if outside that range you need legal and accounting support to back up your own assessment

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.

hibikir
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Have you spent much time looking inside non profits? A lot of hospitals in the US are non profits. Some are part of non profit universities too. This in no way leads to superior cost controls, or those universities being cheap. What it does mean is that they get some significant tax advantages (for instance, no property taxes), and that there's fewer optimization incentives. When you limit yourself to the US definition of a non profit company, it doesn't make care better or cheaper.
iamnothere
about 2 months ago
Studies have shown both a decrease in care outcomes and higher costs for private hospitals: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC419772/ https://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2002/05/5712.html
philipallstar
about 2 months ago
1 reply
I'm not saying profit in that sense. I'm just saying that it's monetary profit all the way down when it comes to paid work. People work for profit. People invest for profit. People bet for profit.
iamnothere
about 2 months ago
The person you were replying to seemed to be discussing profit in the sense of tax law, not whether or not people should be paid at all. I don’t think anyone here is saying that doctors should not be paid.
OkayPhysicist
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Most people do not profit off their labor. 2/3rds of people are living paycheck to paycheck, which means that they are being paid approximately the same amount that their labor costs to produce. That makes their wages an exchange of equal value, and thus not profitable.
philipallstar
about 2 months ago
1 reply
> which means that they are being paid approximately the same amount that their labor costs to produce

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.

OkayPhysicist
about 1 month ago
If a business makes $50,000 in revenue, and has $50,000 in costs, we don't say that business turned a profit. If a person makes $50,000 in revenue, but has $50,000 in costs, we tax them as if they profited $50,000.
jasonlotito
about 1 month ago
I like how you ignored the entire point and lied about what I said.
some_random
about 2 months ago
4 replies
You're welcome to come up with an alternative system of aligning interests, so far all of the other ones have failed horrifically.
sensanaty
about 2 months ago
1 reply
I live in NL. I pay 130 euros a month for my health insurance, and a max of 375 yearly on deductibles should I accrue some costs. The only reason I pay 130 is because I earn above a certain number, otherwise it's discounted and even free at a certain level (and I opted into the more expensive tier to also have dental coverage). In my case, my employer even pays for my insurance so in reality I don't even pay anything monthly (that's rare here though).

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.

hibikir
about 2 months ago
2 replies
"Healthcare that isn't for profit" doesn't mean just a national health insurance. Just that as a random citizen you are shielded from seeing all the same issues underneath. The pharma companies, test providers, equipment makers and personnel are all making profits. I bet the total amount paid is higher that 130 euros a month. There's profit all through the system, so claims that healthcare should not be for profit are silly.

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.

immibis
about 2 months ago
Profit is what's left after everyone is paid for their work. No profit doesn't mean nobody gets paid - it means nobody's trying to simultaneously maximize revenue and minimize costs just so they can pay themselves the difference.

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.

porridgeraisin
about 2 months ago
Not to mention EU pharma makes 50-70% [1] of their money from the US, an unregulated market. I'd challenge them to shut down that 800USD/shot revenue stream and still give subsidised insulin locally and remain profitable. Hint: they can't. Their shareholders would shut them down in a week. Good luck manufacturing the next new drug then.

[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.

lawlessone
about 2 months ago
1 reply
> so far all of the other ones have failed horrifically.

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.

nradov
about 2 months ago
The US has higher 5-year survival rates for most types of cancer than the UK. In general the US is the world leader in cancer care.
hylaride
about 2 months ago
> so far all of the other ones have failed horrifically.

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).

immibis
about 2 months ago
how about copying the exact thing that works in literally almost every other country in the world

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?

lesuorac
about 2 months ago
2 replies
Sure but imagine you hire a landscaper and they send you a $40 invoice for $20 of law cutting and $20 of leaf cleanup. You go look outside and see a ton of leafs so you just send them $20.

That's the insurance companies' stance. The work you performed is this and so our agreed upon rate is this.

kstrauser
about 2 months ago
But in reality, the landscaper bills you for $100, you say you’re only going to pay $90, and then you write them a check for $31.50.

(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.

bshep
about 2 months ago
but the landscaper has a photo of the clean yard after they finished. They send it to you but you ( as the insurance company) say they need to call a specific time and speak to your 12y/o who is the yard representative of the house.

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 )

pragmatic
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Insurers (payers in the industry lingo) simply don’t pay or underpay.

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.

kamarg
about 2 months ago
4 replies
> Recovery is beyond the scope of most small practices.

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.

brewdad
about 2 months ago
It's much easier to treat it like identity theft where the business's problem becomes the customer's problem to solve. In this case, insurance didn't pay what was required so the patient does. There's already a potential collections agency involved if the patient doesn't pay.

Who do you think is easier to squeeze the money from? A mega-insurance corporation or your sick grandma?

lozenge
about 2 months ago
You'll notice the doctor's office in the article already has a team of billing experts. But instead of working on new claims, they are being forced to relitigate claims they already submitted that weren't accepted.
datadrivenangel
about 2 months ago
Sending your patient's 'debt' to collections promptly is very unpopular with the patients, and the insurance companies will 100% insist that the patient is responsible.
toast0
about 2 months ago
Yeah, there's an industry of companies that insert themselves between the medical record and the insurance company to upcode claims and get better payments. This article is about the reverse process, where the insurance company looks at the claims and downcodes them to send worse payments.

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.

spiffytech
about 2 months ago
2 replies
Insurance companies hold tremendous leverage over care providers, up to and including the power to effectively put them out of business on a whim. Care providers don't like picking fights with insurance companies.
tptacek
about 2 months ago
2 replies
Care providers make massively, massively more money than insurance providers.
aspenmayer
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Care providers also likely spend much more time and labor on making that money than the insurance providers spend making their end, though I only have anecdotal evidence of this through my involvement in healthcare providers’ practices as an MSP.
tptacek
about 2 months ago
1 reply
It's $2.5Tn vs $0.3Tn. It's more than 8x more.
aspenmayer
about 2 months ago
That’s one half of the proportion. What is the time/labor spent?
zaptheimpaler
about 2 months ago
1 reply
You can look up Dr. Elizabeth Potter on Youtube who publicly details what its like dealing with insurance, and all the ways insurance screws her and her patients. United Health actively threatened and retaliated against her business when she started getting publicity.

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.

tptacek
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Or I could just look at the numbers and see that providers make more than 8x what insurers do.
zaptheimpaler
about 2 months ago
1 reply
And yet this has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that "Insurance companies hold tremendous leverage over care providers, up to and including the power to effectively put them out of business on a whim.", you're not even engaging with the argument at all.
tptacek
about 2 months ago
1 reply
It doesn't? All the money is going to them, and they're massively larger than the insurers, but it's the insurers with all the leverage? Why isn't more of the money going to the insurers then?

https://nationalhealthspending.org/

zaptheimpaler
about 2 months ago
Do you make this argument in any other scenario? I'm sure all merchants who accept credit cards combined make WAY more than Visa/MC, but I think most would agree Visa has much more leverage over a corner shop that accepts Visa than the other way around.

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.

nradov
about 2 months ago
It depends on the size of the provider organization. In some areas there has been a lot of provider consolidation driven by the need to gain more negotiating power with commercial payers. So we end up with only a few large integrated delivery systems dominating certain regional markets.
bena
about 2 months ago
2 replies
It's truly fucked up.

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.

nradov
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Health plans are legally required to publish their rates and they all comply with this now. You can literally just go to any payer web site and download the MRF. There are occasional data errors but overall the numbers are generally accurate.

https://www.cms.gov/priorities/healthplan-price-transparency...

https://github.com/CMSgov/price-transparency-guide

bena
about 2 months ago
As of 2022, that explains it. It’s been a bit since I’ve worked in the field.

It’s good that it’s changed

hibikir
about 2 months ago
Ah, but this has also lead to many private practices getting bought by hospital groups, at which point they have superior pricing power. The doctor makes more money, and the insurance company pays more, as it's harder to strongarm a company that owns 8 hospitals than a 3 doctor practice. Either way, the price goes up.
postflopclarity
about 2 months ago
good luck suing when lawyers cost the doctor 2k/hour and the insurance companies have armies of in house counsel.
anigbrowl
about 2 months ago
I'm 90% certain that submitting claims to an insurer subjects doctors to resolving any disputes via an appeal followed by an arbitration process, and that the right to sue or handle the debt in the regular way is severely attenuated.
gwbas1c
about 2 months ago
Doctors have extensive contracts with insurance companies, and often have employees dedicated to billing. I wouldn't make assumptions here, other than "downcoding" is probably just subtle enough to not be worth it to fight.
kotaKat
about 2 months ago
2 replies
Ah yes, this is a fight between the practices (sometimes not the doctors!) upcoding their visits and the insurance companies wanting to push back and downcode the visits to what they actually entailed.

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.

polski-g
about 2 months ago
2 replies
There is immense pressure on insurance companies to lower costs, as they get blamed for the "American health care system". The only one on the side of the payer is the insurance company, they're the only one who wants to keep costs down for the consumer. Given the massive amounts of fraud in government health insurance (medicare) it would of course be prevalent in the private insurance market.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/20...

vjvjvjvjghv
about 2 months ago
1 reply
“ they're the only one who wants to keep costs down for the consumer.”

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.

polski-g
about 2 months ago
1 reply
My employer switches insurance carriers every 4 years or so because another carrier has a more competitive rate. "What's best for the employer" is also what's best for me -- I can walk across the street and get a new job if I become unhappy. They want to keep their healthcare costs down so they can keep my salary high as dollars lost to my healthcare compensation are invisible to me.
datadrivenangel
about 2 months ago
Except that the insurance plans charge the employer and so the cheaper plans mean more haggling and potentially out of pocket for you later
Ancalagon
about 2 months ago
1 reply
why dont other countries have similar amounts of healthcare fraud in their single-payer systems?
polski-g
about 2 months ago
They do. Billions are lost in Germany every year due to fraud.
arealaccount
about 2 months ago
5 replies
I never understood why insurers get all the flack while the providers get a pass.
cogman10
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Because the common interaction people have with their insurers is "We are denying this because of <REASON>" which they have to fight to get healthcare.

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).

deathanatos
about 2 months ago
> Because the common interaction people have with their insurers is "We are denying this because of <REASON>"

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."

potato3732842
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Every party at every point in the system is various shades of complicit in fleecing us. That's the magic of the system. It's all divided up in so many ways and so many of the feedback loops touch through the people getting screwed that it's impossible to build a "these guys might not be wholly responsible, but they're responsible enough things will get better if we push them off a cliff or legislate them into poverty or whatever" consensus you need to build to change things

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

nocoiner
about 2 months ago
1 reply
You think nurses and couriers are the ones who need to take pay cuts to get healthcare expenses under control??? Lm, and I cannot stress this enough, fao.
potato3732842
about 2 months ago
The size of the haircut the whole industry needs to take is so large that in all likelihood nobody will be unscathed.
walkabout
about 2 months ago
FWIW I hate most medical billing departments (and hospitals are the worst) about as much as I hate insurance.

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.

unyttigfjelltol
about 2 months ago
Because it’s only human nature to complain about the people who aren’t in the room. Insurers are not only absent, they are economically adverse to the two parties making decisions in the room.
myko
about 2 months ago
In years of working in the medical industry it is rare for health systems to purposefully upcode a patient's visit (this is taken extremely seriously) while insurers attempting not to pay the bill and sticking it to the patient and health system is standard practice
daoboy
about 2 months ago
1 reply
For what it's worth, this sort of gaming works both ways.

Many medical administrations do everything they can to upcode in order to bill for more money.

The whole system is a mess.

nadermx
about 2 months ago
2 replies
It's beyond our control, says only country where this happens daily.
antonymoose
about 2 months ago
2 replies
Pretty sure fraudulent billing practices exist in a variety of nations and industries.
jasonlotito
about 2 months ago
2 replies
It does.

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.

acheron
about 2 months ago
But shitting on the US gets you lots of Internet upvotes, and isn’t that the important thing?
poncho_romero
about 2 months ago
Are you wealthy?
vjvjvjvjghv
about 2 months ago
Other countries are making efforts to keep things in check though https://www.npr.org/2025/01/04/nx-s1-5246231/potential-fraud.... The US for some reason can’t even address blatant fraud. One example is the stuff insurers do with Medicare Advantage. There is fraud and Congress knows about it but besides some hearings nothing is happening.
bluGill
about 2 months ago
2 replies
IT is beyond our control because we have setup a system where the people who are paying don't want to control things.

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).

potato3732842
about 2 months ago
There's an old mechanics saying "if X was covered by insurance it'd cost what Y does" where X is some routine thing (tires/brakes/etc) and Y is autobody or glass services typically covered by insurance.

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.

pastor_williams
about 2 months ago
Doctors have also spent a lot of time lobbying to make becoming a doctor harder so that the fewer doctors will be able to command better salaries. It sounds like they are attempting to reverse that and open up more spots for residencies but I imagine that there is a lot of momentum to overcome.
pnathan
about 2 months ago
1 reply
I wonder how this plays out with Kaiser and other integrated practices.
breadwinner
about 2 months ago
They try to convince you that you're fine and don't need any treatment.
gwbas1c
about 2 months ago
2 replies
This doesn't surprise me: The "fee for service" system encourages doctors to perform as many services as they can so they can bill for more. I've certainly had my fair share of tests and procedures where I wonder if the provider was just trying to find something to bill for.

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.

mbb70
about 2 months ago
1 reply
"Figure out which codes they can use to get the most revenue" is a billion dollar industry with many players, subspecialties and surprisingly few lawsuits.
mschuster91
about 2 months ago
A lack of lawsuits can just be an off the record agreement that no one benefits from the entire mess being dragged in front of the courts with public record laws, because that is how you give future Luigis ideas.

The more shady the industry, the more everyone involved is shying awaa from sunlight.

estimator7292
about 2 months ago
The counter to this is that now when you go to urgent care, they're only allowed to do one thing and send you to the ER for any other concurrent problems where you pay 10x more because it's an "emergency"
silexia
about 2 months ago
1 reply
I went to the dentist a couple of weeks ago and had the shortest dental visit I've had. They did the X-rays, then the dental assistant spent five minutes cleaning my teeth and pronounced them good. The dentist came in and looked for about one minute and said they were fine. I was sent on my way.

They billed my insurance for over a thousand dollars.

philipallstar
about 2 months ago
Indeed. Part of the problem is news vendors will only tell one side of the story. If that dentist only billed, say, $150 ($40 per x-ray including time, wear, consumables), $20 for teeth cleaning time, $50 for rent, property rates, taxes, profit) then you'd pay far less in insurance. They all bill more because they can.
eigencoder
about 2 months ago
2 replies
My pediatrician always charges us for an office visit + preventative care when we go in for a preventative care visit. It's obviously to get more $$ from insurance. I feel like this goes both ways...
throwawayqqq11
about 2 months ago
1 reply
An obligation to pay is always good for the billing side. Think about the sociopathic prices of US pharmaceuticals.

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.

Taikonerd
about 2 months ago
> 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

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."

darth_avocado
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Yeah enough gets talked about insurers acting in bad faith, but let’s not forget hospitals also acting in bad faith for their end. Some personal examples:

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).

sarchertech
about 2 months ago
1 reply
>I go in person, get antibiotics and get cured.

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.

darth_avocado
about 2 months ago
1 reply
> Go to PCP with cold symptoms that haven’t cleared in 10 days

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.

sarchertech
about 2 months ago
1 reply
There are viruses that can last 2 weeks and mimic bacterial infections.

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.

darth_avocado
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Standard of care for persistent symptoms compatible with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis for more than 10 days IS prescribing antibiotics.
sarchertech
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Just asked my wife (ER doctor). She says it's 2 weeks for adults, 3 weeks for kids.
darth_avocado
about 2 months ago
1 reply
I also confirmed with a MD friend of mine, 10 days or more of worsening symptoms could be indicative of bacterial sinusitis. For adults you can begin the treatment on that diagnosis. You can also start antibiotic treatments before 10 days in certain conditions but it is generally not recommended. Just because a patient shows up on 11th day with worsening symptoms doesn’t mean you have to wait 2 weeks.
sarchertech
about 2 months ago
Sure. It’s a guideline not a hard rule. Doctors have wide latitude. A doctor could give you antibiotics whenever they want.

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.

3D30497420
about 2 months ago
2 replies
This sort of thing gets to two critical problems of the American system: 1. It is largely designed to make money, not actually help patients. So every step in the healthcare chain that can extract a bit of value will do so, largely to boost profits. 2. Insane complexity with limited transparency. How much will something cost? Hard to tell. Will it be covered? Who knows?

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>

hypeatei
about 2 months ago
2 replies
> No one knows, do the test and insurance will decide

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?

danaris
about 2 months ago
2 replies
No, I assure you, it is very common for doctors' offices not to know whether a particular procedure will be covered.

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.

hypeatei
about 2 months ago
3 replies
> An insurance company's only goal nowadays is to make as much money 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.

lozenge
about 2 months ago
1 reply
So increase the health care spending, then you can raise premiums. An issue the ACA drafters already knew about, and tried (and failed) to deal with.
lotsofpulp
about 2 months ago
The linked article is about insurers trying to reduce spending by downcoding.

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.

wat10000
about 2 months ago
1 reply
A 25% margin is pretty good, and companies aren't hitting the limit currently.
lotsofpulp
about 2 months ago
1 reply
The 7 publicly listed health insurers have ~2% profit margins, with the exception of UNH at 6%, but that is due to its healthcare provider business earning higher margins.

The other insurers are almost all non profit (various BCBS affiliated insurers, Kaiser, Providence, etc).

wat10000
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Not sure what the relevance of that is. If anything, small profit margins just further incentivize trying to pay out less.
lotsofpulp
about 2 months ago
1 reply
You wrote they had 25% margins. And obviously a business with 2% profit margins is incentivized to spend less, if they didn’t, they would be out of business!
wat10000
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Gross versus net margin. The other commenter was saying they don't have incentives to cut costs because of the MLR limit, but that limit is a 25% margin over the cost of their "product." For a product that boils down to just moving money around, 25% is pretty good.

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%.

lotsofpulp
about 2 months ago
> The other commenter was saying they don't have incentives to cut costs because of the MLR limit, but that limit is a 25% margin over the cost of their "product." For a product that boils down to just moving money around, 25% is pretty good.

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.

malfist
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Let me tell you about this little thing called Hollywood accounting
lotsofpulp
about 2 months ago
Hollywood accounting has nothing to do with legal accounting standards that are followed for publicly listed companies’ required SEC reports.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

The only thing Hollywood accounting does is affect poorly written contracts between businesses.

Braxton1980
about 2 months ago
>An insurance company's only goal nowadays is to make as much money as possible for as little effort as possible.

That's the goal of almost every business and person

lotsofpulp
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Health insurance companies have told me, on the phone, that they will not tell me the codes the doctor needs to charge for preventative visits in order to for my visit to be covered as preventative care (meaning I don’t have to pay anything).

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.

testing22321
about 2 months ago
1 reply
> 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.

Malicious compliance engaged.

Start with code “1” and go to “99999999999999999” until they tell you it’s covered.

dotancohen
about 2 months ago
Or ask your favorite LLM.
supportengineer
about 2 months ago
1 reply
Here are the magic words in US Health Care: "What is the cash price?"

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.

i80and
about 2 months ago
4 replies
FSAs are insane, conceptually.

"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.

lotsofpulp
about 2 months ago
4 replies
I don’t understand why any decision maker in any business in the USA chooses to offer their employees (and hence themselves) health FSAs at all, especially when the much superior in every way Fidelity HSA is available.
supportengineer
about 2 months ago
1 reply
HSA requires a high deductible health plan, not everyone could afford that deductible.

"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)."

xhrpost
about 2 months ago
Yup, I agree HSA is superior but depending on your situation (and plans offered), the HDHP can be much more expensive out of pocket[1], even if you're paying with after tax dollars. Sweet spot I think is using a good low deductible plan when it makes sense but having a spouse with an HSA which both spouses can use for expenses.

[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.

delecti
about 2 months ago
2 replies
HSAs are only available alongside high deductible plans (HDHP), which aren't necessarily ideal in all situations. FSAs are the only option like that if you don't have an HDHP.
fnicfnac
about 2 months ago
2 replies
What is the point of having a low deductible when you could put the premium difference in a HSA and use it on either the deductible or something uncovered?
bobmcnamara
about 2 months ago
There are some cases where an HSA is unavailable. I've had an employer not offer a high deductible plan. I've had an employer offer a high deductible plan, but the insurer not supply it in my home state.

There are cases where it doesn't make fiscal sense. One employer covered 1x premium/employee(spouses and kids were full rate).

hibikir
about 2 months ago
The math on whether you are ahead with the HSA or not is non trivial, especially if you are married and neither employer offers any subsidy when you put your spouse in your plan. HSAs are often better, but it's a very unfortunate math problem, where you carry quite a bit of risk. The HSA contributions from your employer are often nowhere near enough to make it win all the time. If your employer's does, consider yourself lucky. On any given open enrollment, my household has at least 30 combinations of healthcare plans to consider, and that's ignoring dentals, visions and the like
lotsofpulp
about 2 months ago
Surely, that is offset by having to forfeit or waste any FSA money not needed by the end of the year. It really only makes sense if you have a minimum amount of guaranteed healthcare expenses every year.
tpmoney
about 2 months ago
2 replies
All the FSA money in your account is available immediately at the beginning of the year. Ironically that would make it a better choice for anyone with a lot of medical expenses on an HDHP if it wasn’t for the fact that FSAs are capped by law.

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

lotsofpulp
about 2 months ago
2 replies
My HSA money is also available in the first pay period of the calendar year. It’s up to the employer to decide when they want to contribute it.
firesteelrain
about 2 months ago
I think he is saying that if you want your FSA to be $5000 then it’s funded immediately but it gets taken out of your paycheck every pay period.

HSA is funded as you go

tpmoney
about 2 months ago
That assumes your employer does any contributions to your HSA. And if your employer is sticking you with an HDHP, that’s not always a given. Your own payroll deductions are pay-as-you-go
firesteelrain
about 2 months ago
FSAs are limited in scope if you have a HDHP by law. Only LPFSAs are allowed. HSAs don’t have that restriction other than you have to be on a HDHP to get it
deathanatos
about 2 months ago
2 replies
I've never seen the point of HSAs, either. The only benefit is the tax difference. There are (usually unknown, unstated upfront) plan fees that eat into that, and coupled with the higher deductibles and worse plan coverage, you're going to pay more out of pocket. It's never been clear to me if (higher OOP + plan fees) < (tax savings) is true, like they want you to believe.

And it's a time suck.

firesteelrain
about 2 months ago
HSAs are one of the best accounts and last until death.
lotsofpulp
about 2 months ago
An employer sponsored HSA is the single most tax advantaged account in the US, and Fidelity HSA have no fees. No FICA tax, no income tax going in, on investment returns, and coming out. Worth tens of thousands of dollars over 20, 30, 40+ years.

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.

toast0
about 2 months ago
1 reply
I lost some money, or at least had a hard time using it, because I was quoted a price for something, set the FSA for the next year based on that, and then the billing ended up where only some of the price was eligible for FSA.

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.

junar
about 2 months ago
There are a few caveats with the medical expense deduction.

* 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.

darth_avocado
about 2 months ago
1 reply
It is a relatively easy fix tbh. You spend on medical bills through the account like you do right now, but the way you fund it is your post tax contributions. At the end of the year the account sends you a statement of what you used and you can use it to get the tax paid on the money back when you file the taxes.
themafia
about 2 months ago
And if you're wrong on your medical expense paperwork it could be a felony!

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.

pkaye
about 2 months ago
FSA does have the concept of rollover of up to $600 but its up to the employer to decide. I imagine that full rollover is not allowed because otherwise people would use the FSA to defer some tax payments to end of year. But there are ways they could have handled it better.

185 more comments available on Hacker News

View full discussion on Hacker News
ID: 45526754Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 8:18:36 PM

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.

Read ArticleView on HN
Not Hacker News Logo

Not

Hacker

News!

AI-observed conversations & context

Daily AI-observed summaries, trends, and audience signals pulled from Hacker News so you can see the conversation before it hits your feed.

LiveBeta

Explore

  • Home
  • Hiring
  • Products
  • Companies
  • Discussion
  • Q&A

Resources

  • Visit Hacker News
  • HN API
  • Modal cronjobs
  • Meta Llama

Briefings

Inbox recaps on the loudest debates & under-the-radar launches.

Connect

© 2025 Not Hacker News! — independent Hacker News companion.

Not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator. We simply enrich the public API with analytics.