Who dictates in network rates?
Insurers!
2/x
THREAD - Doctors want to fix “surprise bills” more accurately called unpaid insurer bills but today’s “agreement” is NOT the right fix for patients
It’s just a big boost to insurer profits & will shutter independent physician practices & rural hospitals!
1/x
Just joined other House and Senate leaders in announcing a surprise billing agreement. Under this agreement, the days of patients receiving devastating surprise out-of-network medical bills will be over. https://t.co/HELY6OiPtS
— Rep. Frank Pallone (@FrankPallone) December 12, 2020
Who dictates in network rates?
Insurers!
2/x
This is just giving more power to profitable insurers
3/x
Insurers have total control over “median in network” rates w their monopolies
5/x
https://t.co/NfgMrWNoq5
Independent practices had to shutter their doors or join large health systems to survive. Consolidation drives up costs! Rural areas were hit hardest.
6/x
Tying arbitration to “median in network” rates gives insurers ALL the leverage
7/
“From 2015-2018, the Out of Network Law saved NY more than $400 mil in emergency services, reduced out-of-network billing by 34%, lowered in-network ED physician payments by 9%”
https://t.co/HhqkTkB4Fe
NY’s surprise bill saved consumers $400 mil per @NYGovCuomo @NYDFS
In CA consumer complaints re access to care skyrocketed after benchmarking implemented
9/x
HR3502 by @DrPhilRoe @Dr_RaulRuiz already has 110 cosponsors but House and Senate leadership continues to ignore!
11/x
https://t.co/c7t6qnsuXJ
This agreement though is unacceptable - benefits insurers only & will crush independent practices & rural hospitals. Will drive consolidation, ⬆️ cost, exacerbate access to care problems
12/x
@SenSchumer @SpeakerPelosi @senatemajldr @RepKevinBrady @RepRichardNeal
/end
@EdLaborGOP
@BobbyScott
@GOPHELP
@SenateHELP
@SenateFinance
@SenFinance
@SenateApprops
@WaysMeansCmte
@EnergyCommerce
@WaysAndMeansGOP
@HouseCommerce
@AppropsDems
@HouseAppropsGOP
@HouseBudgetDems
@HouseBudgetGOP
@HouseGOP
@HouseDemocrats
@WhipClyburn
More from Health
1/16
Why do B12 and folate deficiencies lead to HUGE red blood cells?
And, if the issue is DNA synthesis, why are red blood cells (which don't have DNA) the key cell line affected?
For answers, we'll have to go back a few billion years.
2/
RNA came first. Then, ~3-4 billion years ago, DNA emerged.
Among their differences:
🔹RNA contains uracil
🔹DNA contains thymine
But why does DNA contains thymine (T) instead of uracil (U)?
https://t.co/XlxT6cLLXg
3/
🔑Cytosine (C) can undergo spontaneous deamination to uracil (U).
In the RNA world, this meant that U could appear intensionally or unintentionally. This is clearly problematic. How can you repair RNA when you can't tell if something is an error?
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
4/
DNA's use of T instead of U means that spontaneous C → U deamination can be corrected without worry that an intentional U is being removed.
DNA requires greater stability than RNA so the transition to a thymine-based structure was beneficial.
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
5/
Let's return to megaloblastic anemia secondary to B12 or folate deficiency.
When either is severely deficient deoxythymidine monophosphate (dTMP*) production is hindered. With less dTMP, DNA synthesis is abnormal.
[*Note: thymine is the base in dTMP]
https://t.co/AnDUtKkbZh
Why do B12 and folate deficiencies lead to HUGE red blood cells?
And, if the issue is DNA synthesis, why are red blood cells (which don't have DNA) the key cell line affected?
For answers, we'll have to go back a few billion years.
2/
RNA came first. Then, ~3-4 billion years ago, DNA emerged.
Among their differences:
🔹RNA contains uracil
🔹DNA contains thymine
But why does DNA contains thymine (T) instead of uracil (U)?
https://t.co/XlxT6cLLXg
3/
🔑Cytosine (C) can undergo spontaneous deamination to uracil (U).
In the RNA world, this meant that U could appear intensionally or unintentionally. This is clearly problematic. How can you repair RNA when you can't tell if something is an error?
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
4/
DNA's use of T instead of U means that spontaneous C → U deamination can be corrected without worry that an intentional U is being removed.
DNA requires greater stability than RNA so the transition to a thymine-based structure was beneficial.
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
5/
Let's return to megaloblastic anemia secondary to B12 or folate deficiency.
When either is severely deficient deoxythymidine monophosphate (dTMP*) production is hindered. With less dTMP, DNA synthesis is abnormal.
[*Note: thymine is the base in dTMP]
https://t.co/AnDUtKkbZh
You May Also Like
I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
Ironies of Luck https://t.co/5BPWGbAxFi
— Morgan Housel (@morganhousel) March 14, 2018
"Luck is the flip side of risk. They are mirrored cousins, driven by the same thing: You are one person in a 7 billion player game, and the accidental impact of other people\u2019s actions can be more consequential than your own."
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
