[mitchellst]

I want to complain a little about the journalism (not) being done here. Because I read this article, and I read the (better, but still lacking) Bloomberg Law article it links/rewrites, and I still have no idea what's happening.

The law firm says the surgeon made false claims. (Which claims? Were they false?)

The surgeon reacted with some twitter grandstanding saying she was on the side of the women she cares for who are battling cancer. (Noble, but irrelevant. She can tell the truth for a good cause or lie for a good cause. Which did she do?)

UHC's spokesperson makes a big show of saying there are "no insurance-related circumstances that would ever require a physician to step out of surgery" and they would "never ask or expect that." Happens all the time actually, in part because if you don't work on the insurance company's schedule and answer their calls, you may not be able to talk to them for weeks, and your patient is denied in the meantime. But is that what was happening here? Apparently nobody thought to ask or include that information.

The implication of this news item is that UHC has hired a shakedown operation to chill criticism on social media. Big if true. But it seems to really matter whether the people on either side are telling the truth. Somebody should report that out. Alas, I guess "big company vs plucky surgeon in social media spat" is a simple script that requires no work, we don't need to be curious about who the hero(ine) and the villain are.

[Aurornis]

> The law firm says the surgeon made false claims. (Which claims? Were they false?)

The letter seems clear to me, and unfortunately for the doctor they have receipts (phone call recordings and the paperwork)

The biggest problem for the doctor is that they have a record of the doctor conceding that the wrong paperwork was submitted by her office (hence the call) and that the UHC rep asked for her to call back when convenient (not in the middle of surgery).

I think the UHC doctor got carried away, assumed all mistakes were on UHC’s end rather than her own admin staff, and then went to TikTok to tell a viral story with an exaggerated (at best) version of events.

> Alas, I guess "big company vs plucky surgeon in social media spat" is a simple script that requires no work, we don't need to be curious about who the hero(ine) and the villain are.

This mentality that we must pick a side, where one side is good and the other side is bad, is a huge problem with social media ragebait.

We can admit that the surgeon was wrong to make a viral TikTok with information that was somewhere between very misleading and an outright lie. Admitting this doesn’t make UHC the good guy or the hero.

You don’t have to pick a side. You shouldn’t automatically assume viral TikToks are true because they are targeted at companies you dislike.

[nineplay]

> the UHC rep asked for her to call back when convenient (not in the middle of surgery)

I'll echo the above poster - when an insurance rep calls us we drop everything on the floor and rush to answer it because otherwise they will continue to deny our claim and not get back for weeks. Then they reject our claim because it's now outside their 3 month window.

[franktankbank]

I like how this case hinges on whether the call center employee said "at your convenience". It seems like its double edged to even admit such a thing.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

I think the false claims were on the Tiktok, but the crux that i detect is the issue "UHC called doctor out of OR" is likely true even if UHC didn't intend it that way.

>>The letter seems clear to me

Where is the letter?

>> doctor conceding that the wrong paperwork was submitted by her office (hence the call)

That is a strong assumption to make. The tack you are taking is that one of the 2 parties noticed a wrong PA was requested (and approved) and tried to do something about it, preop. That's the assumption. IF the PA was fine, and that's 100% shenanigans by UHC. Less likely, but still very possible.

[ranger_danger]

Thank you for such a well articulated response, I agree with you.

I am not a surgeon but I have experience standing right next to them during surgeries. In my opinion, they already know that there is never a need to take a phone call from an insurance company during a case. Other reasons for a call may exist, sure, that part is not out of the ordinary... but insurance approval would have already happened before the case had ever started. Plus the overnight stay is not part of the billing for the surgery itself anyways.

[legitster]

If anything, the doctor is admitting to a potential crime! Medical providers aren't supposed to deny procedures based on insurance coverage. Even if UHC called during surgery to say the claim was denied, it's the doctor's choice to do the surgery of not.

[xp84]

As far as I'm concerned, I still appreciate the propaganda value of a story even if it's full of half-truths like this one, because it's time for a reckoning for these companies. There's a tiny, like 1% chance, that someday we'll have the opportunity to institute single payer and kill these businesses full of sickening, greedy ghouls overnight, and anything that helps convince people of their sins so that they won't doubt that it's worth doing, I'm okay with. They've earned it with their many, many, 100% factual bad deeds. And they've never been above lying.

I admit that taking this attitude toward falsehoods isn't 100% ethical, judged by itself, but if it helps to end a system that has killed many thousands and will continue to do until it is abolished, this is a rare case where I'm ok with the ends justifying the means.

[dingnuts]

>Alas, I guess "big company vs plucky surgeon in social media spat" is a simple script that requires no work, we don't need to be curious about who the hero(ine) and the villain are.

spoken like someone who doesn't have a chronic illness requiring an expensive medication to be delivered every month for the rest of their life, who every year has to fight with the insurance company about the fact that multiple sclerosis does not go away and that the medication is still needed, and yet STILL has lapses in receiving the pre-approved and approved and re-approved treatment which causes new symptoms to occur and old ones to relapse while the bureaucrat at the insurance company who is incentivized to give you the runaround plays delay deny delay deny delay over the medication that has been effective for YEARS and will be needed indefinitely.

No, we really do not need to be curious about who the villain is. If UHC is worried about their image, maybe they should DO THE THING THEIR CUSTOMERS FUCKING PAY THEM TO DO

[JumpCrisscross]

> maybe they should DO THE THING THEIR CUSTOMERS FUCKING PAY THEM TO DO

Health insurance in America is broadly profitable. But note that UHC just paying out claims puts them in the same place as California home insurers. Part of the job of a health insurer is to deny unnecessary claims, to be a check on providers, both in procedures and their pricing.

[phendrenad2]

I don't know much about Fortune magazine, but Wikipedia says: "The magazine competes with Forbes and Bloomberg Businessweek in the national business magazine category and distinguishes itself with long, in-depth feature articles"

Which seems incredibly ironic given that this article is 3 paragraphs.

[KennyBlanken]

1)It's not, it's 9-10. 2)This isn't a "feature article."

Maybe save judgement on journalists until you can parse 5th-grade-reading-level sentences correctly.

[jrflowers]

> Alas, I guess "big company vs plucky surgeon in social media spat" is a simple script that requires no work

> UHC's spokesperson makes a big show of saying there are "no insurance-related circumstances that would ever require a physician to step out of surgery" and they would "never ask or expect that." Happens all the time actually

You make a good point. UHC has said something that, according to your direct knowledge, is patently untrue, and yet this article contains nothing accusatory against the surgeon that said something contradictory to the statement that you assert is completely wrong.

If one party says something wrong and another party contradicts them, reporting that is a failure of journalism becau

[gruez]

> [...] reporting that is a failure of journalism becau

well? Don't leave us hanging!

[trod1234]

I was thinking these same things. In fact the original author was of such low journalistic integrity I assumed it must be generated by AI.

Now that might be mistaken, there is no proof one way or the other that I can see, but this does seem to mirror problem areas in AI generated writing.

I wish I had my time and attention that I spent on this back.

[sneak]

I agree, but somehow when a lot of people fall on the “summary execution is warranted and encouraged” side of this debate, the specifics of any single given case end up far below the noise floor.

[KennyBlanken]

> The law firm says the surgeon made false claims. (Which claims? Were they false?)

This is in the Fortune story. UHC provided a direct quote, right after some text you quoted, and the post continues on with the claims the lawyers make.

>The implication of this news item is that UHC has hired a shakedown operation to chill criticism on social media. Big if true. But it seems to really matter whether the people on either side are telling the truth.

Implication? UHC uses the services of a high profile law firm that openly advertises itself as specializing in "defamation matters and representing clients facing high-profile reputational attacks" and, sent a surgeon treating a UHC patient, a C&D letter, over a social media post.

The firm worked for Dominion - and if anyone cares to look back, their record, like nearly every other electronic voting company, isn't very good.

There's really nothing in the story that is unbelievable, and by your own admission we can see how they very carefully phrased it as 'never asked or expected'. This means she'd have to prove that missed calls resulted in delayed care for UHC patients - likely possible, but cumbersome...

Frankly it seems like you didn't read the article fully, or you're being disingenuous.