Doctors didn’t think it was possible to loathe the world’s biggest health care profiteer any more. Then came the hack that set half their bookkeeping systems on fire.
I’m not sure how to answer your question in a manner which doesn’t touch on the same points the author brings forward. Was something they said unclear or are there parts of my comment which you’d like me to elaborate upon?
You attempted to discredit author of the article over him being critical of these concepts but are unwilling to explain how they benefit patients. I see promises being made but I also see steep administrative costs also, which is the critical defect in the US healthcare system.
Based on wiki pages, it appears that these are just another model that serves as band aid on fundamentally flawed system with a lot room for corruption to continue.
This is the essential flaw in having the whole system designed and operated by people whose specialty is extracting the labor value from other people’s effort, and skittering away with it like an 1800s movie villain with a big sack of money with a “$” on it.
She tried to paint ACOs as the brainchild of UHG specifically, as a means to extract wealth from an existing system. That ignores the current state of ACOs and the many which are able to reduce overall healthcare costs and in many cases reduce administrative costs. Yes, the US healthcare system is broken. Yes, it’s very simple to view this as a “band aid on a fundamentally flawed system” and yes, there’s still room for “corruption to continue”. None of that is in conflict with what I stated. I merely took issue with the framing that UHG is responsible for the creation of ACOs and VBC as that’s just factually incorrect, and it suggests the framing that ACOs are not providing any value to the system or being useful in any way- this is contradicted in the article I linked as well as plenty of other published literature by organizations which are notably not UHG.
I know how to read an abbreviation… Looking to understand what they actually do within the corruption scheme
I’m not sure how to answer your question in a manner which doesn’t touch on the same points the author brings forward. Was something they said unclear or are there parts of my comment which you’d like me to elaborate upon?
What job do they actually do?
You suggested they are not corrupt. I am trying to understand where you are coming from?
Explaining what an ACO and what VBC are is far outside the scope of the educational burden I’m willing to take on. Instead, have some links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountable_care_organization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-based_health_care
You attempted to discredit author of the article over him being critical of these concepts but are unwilling to explain how they benefit patients. I see promises being made but I also see steep administrative costs also, which is the critical defect in the US healthcare system.
Based on wiki pages, it appears that these are just another model that serves as band aid on fundamentally flawed system with a lot room for corruption to continue.
This is the essential flaw in having the whole system designed and operated by people whose specialty is extracting the labor value from other people’s effort, and skittering away with it like an 1800s movie villain with a big sack of money with a “$” on it.
😢
She tried to paint ACOs as the brainchild of UHG specifically, as a means to extract wealth from an existing system. That ignores the current state of ACOs and the many which are able to reduce overall healthcare costs and in many cases reduce administrative costs. Yes, the US healthcare system is broken. Yes, it’s very simple to view this as a “band aid on a fundamentally flawed system” and yes, there’s still room for “corruption to continue”. None of that is in conflict with what I stated. I merely took issue with the framing that UHG is responsible for the creation of ACOs and VBC as that’s just factually incorrect, and it suggests the framing that ACOs are not providing any value to the system or being useful in any way- this is contradicted in the article I linked as well as plenty of other published literature by organizations which are notably not UHG.