226
Her Mental Health Treatment Was Helping. That’s Why Insurance Cut Off Her Coverage.
(www.propublica.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
226 points (98.3% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2084 readers
1033 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Same thing that most people say about antibiotics. I don't need to finish this, I'm getting better now, and then they relapse and the antibiotics don't work the second time around. Stopping the treatment of a disease when the patient just begins recovery rather than allowing the patient to fully recover is always bad and sometimes means the second try will be that much more difficult as they are traumatized by the poor result of the previous try. "Fine" is not recovered. I was "fine" for 40+ years with undiagnosed ASD and ADHD, because I learned to mask so I appeared "fine". But really I just had to end treatment every time before prior to finding the root causes.
They aren't doctors, or they aren't the patient's doctor. They sometimes don't even have a specialization in the treatment they deny coverage for.
Completely unqualified.
So not the patient's psychiatrist. Somebody else.
who you gonna believe? me or your lying eyes
Only the criteria here was, "You have made progress." And "You are not a danger to yourself or others.". There is no condition about having to be at a point where you are no longer making progress, only that the person is no longer suicidal/homicidal at the current stage of progress. This isn't at all saying the patient wouldn't benefit from further therapy. That's not a condition for the "medical necessity" in this case. If your only criteria is that the person is somewhat improved and not in an emergency situation, then there is a high likelihood of regression upon cessation of medical intervention in any field of medicine. Hoping that they'll be able to get help again before they become suicidal/homicidal again is not a strategy and usually ends in tragedy. Most times they don't even bother to seek help. This case the person went to the ER, but often that's not going to happen if the person considers the cost of the Ambulance, ER, and hospitalization on top of the mental energy required to make the call and then explain your whole history to someone new and then justify your need for the services. It's unreasonable to expect a good outcome the more times the person has a bad outcome.
That is utter bullshit.
Oh that I agree with. It's the whole, "most people don't improve after 16 sessions" bit they had going. A lot of people out there require years of work to become functional again and the last thing they want to hear is that they're a lost cause because they weren't functional after a few months of therapy. Especially because it's not true and because there're far better ways to move someone into an outpatient/maintenance treatment plan than, "we yanked your funding because we think you're actually okay now." As the article explains, that kind of rug pull causes serious mental distress. It would cause anyone mental distress to have a support yanked out from under them, but people who are already struggling will obviously have worse outcomes.
Where's your stats and data that back that up??
Narrator: They didn’t have any.