reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I worked at UnitedHealthcare for about nine months in the medical claims department. After extensive training, I was taught various ways to deny claims, which was frustrating given the complexity of the policies. One case involved a widowed woman whose husband had just died from pancreatic cancer. She was facing court over a hospice claim, and they were garnishing her wages within 60 days of his passing. Despite her desperate situation, the company insisted on denying her claim. Eventually, I was able to approve a significant payment, but they expected her to cover it without any insurance. I couldn’t continue working there, so I quit and took a job fighting insurance claims from the other side. My experience taught me a lot about navigating the insurance system, especially with UMR, a branch of UnitedHealthcare.

New developments in the UnitedHealth CEO saga reveal troubling aspects of their physician contracts. A specific clause states that whether a treatment is covered should not determine if it's provided, implying that healthcare professionals should offer necessary care regardless of insurance coverage. This shifts responsibility from the insurance company to the provider, potentially leaving them liable for care that may not be reimbursed. It's shocking that such a clause exists, and there seems to be a lack of regulatory scrutiny, such as class action lawsuits or investigations by agencies like the FTC or SEC. This situation raises significant concerns about accountability in healthcare. What are your thoughts? Leave a comment below.

Dr. Potter is speaking with an unnamed doctor from United Healthcare to discuss a patient's breast reconstruction. Dr. Potter wants to understand why United is denying coverage for a procedure to preserve sensation, involving dissection of the fourth intercostal nerve and grafting it to dermatosensory elements on the nipple. Dr. Potter requests the evaluation and reasoning behind United's decision, including the data and literature they reviewed. The unnamed doctor states that they cannot provide their name due to security reasons and that the information Dr. Potter is requesting is an internal resource and cannot be emailed. Dr. Potter expresses concern that United is making a medical determination, questions how that process works, and states that recent data from 2023 and 2024 supports the procedure's effectiveness. Dr. Potter will file an internal appeal.

It's 2025, and insurance issues are worsening. During a surgery, I received a call from UnitedHealthcare demanding information about a patient who was currently under anesthesia for breast cancer surgery. They insisted I provide her diagnosis and justify her inpatient stay. I explained that she was asleep and needed to stay overnight, and I had already secured approval for the surgery. The representative admitted he wasn't familiar with her case and that I needed to speak to another department. This situation highlights the chaos and frustration surrounding insurance processes. It's simply out of control.

Health insurance companies, particularly Blue Cross, are becoming more challenging in authorizing treatments. When physicians request authorization, they often face a peer-to-peer review process, where they must speak to an insurance-employed doctor who typically denies requests. Previously, these calls were scheduled to accommodate the physician's availability. Now, Blue Cross has changed its approach: they will only call once, without notice or identification of the number. If a physician is busy with patients or has their phone on do not disturb, they may miss this call, resulting in denied treatment authorization.

For those who like their insurance, the idea is to provide access to medical care without the hassle of insurance approval delays. Let's eliminate the need for insurance companies to give approval, deal with paperwork, and wait for coverage confirmation from doctors. Let's focus on making healthcare more accessible for everyone.

A family practice physician in San Diego recounts a bizarre experience where her patient's insurance denied a wheelchair request for a double amputee, citing a lack of documentation on how his walking was affected. This highlights the problematic prior authorization process, which often delays necessary treatments. One case involved Kathleen Valentini, whose MRI for hip pain was denied, leading to a delayed cancer diagnosis and ultimately an amputation. Reports show that 80% of doctors say patients abandon treatments due to prior authorizations, which can result in life-threatening situations. Insurance companies claim these processes prevent unnecessary procedures, but many argue they are more about profit than patient care. Legislative efforts are underway to reform prior authorization, but the system remains flawed, with some suggesting a return to a "pay and chase" model that allows doctors to make decisions without insurer interference.

A 35-year-old patient with aggressive breast cancer and a family history of cancers underwent a mastectomy last year. Her insurance initially denied a prophylactic mastectomy on the other breast. After radiation and chemotherapy, the patient wanted the other breast removed due to worry, which the speaker deemed reasonable. The insurance company denied a second request, but after appeals, a doctor at the insurance company overturned the decision, approving the prophylactic mastectomy. However, the insurance company then contested the timing of the DIEP flap reconstruction, wanting the surgeon to wait six months after radiation, against the surgeon's judgment that four months is sufficient. The speaker asserts that the insurance company is practicing medicine by dictating the timing of the surgery.

In 2025, insurance is worsening. A surgeon was called during a bilateral deep and expander procedure by UnitedHealthcare, demanding information about a patient currently undergoing surgery. The representative needed the patient's diagnosis and justification for an inpatient stay. The surgeon explained the patient had breast cancer and was currently asleep, but the representative claimed that information was handled by a different department, despite the surgeon having received prior approval for the surgery. The surgeon emphasized the need for the patient to stay overnight and expressed frustration with the insurance situation, stating it is out of control.

A doctor explains why some physicians are no longer accepting insurance, citing the practice of "clawbacks." The doctor performed an operation in February and billed the patient's insurance. The insurance company paid about a third of the billed amount. Four months later, the insurance company sent a letter stating they overpaid and demanded a refund. This "clawback" means the insurance company believes it overpaid for a service rendered months prior and demands repayment, threatening to withhold future payments if the doctor doesn't comply. The doctor states that such practices create stress and make small practices unsustainable, making it difficult to budget and project future finances. The doctor poses the question of whether one would continue working for an employer who demands repayment months later. The doctor claims that these underpayments and clawbacks contribute to insurance companies' large profits and that doctors drop insurance to avoid these issues and sustain their practices while providing good patient care.

It's 2025, and insurance issues are worsening. During a surgery, I received a call from UnitedHealthcare demanding information about a patient who was under anesthesia. They wanted to know her diagnosis and if her inpatient stay was justified. I explained that she was asleep and had breast cancer, but the representative claimed he wasn't informed and directed me to another department. I emphasized that she needed to stay overnight and that I had already received approval for the surgery. This situation highlights how out of control insurance has become.

Dr. Potter is speaking with an unnamed doctor at United Healthcare to discuss a patient's breast reconstruction. Dr. Potter wants to understand why the procedure is not covered, particularly the nerve graft to preserve sensation, stating it's the patient's only chance. Dr. Potter requests the evaluation and reasoning behind United's decision, including the literature reviewed. The unnamed doctor cannot provide their name or email the information, citing security and internal resource policies. Dr. Potter expresses concern that United is making a medical determination, not just a coverage decision. Dr. Potter cites data from 2023 and 2024 supporting the procedure's effectiveness and wants to see the data United is using to deny coverage. Dr. Potter will file an internal appeal.

You want to speak with her? I can get her on the call. We're dealing with numerous denials weekly. My name is Julie, and we face significant challenges with insurance companies. Despite our efforts, we receive cease and desist letters for speaking out on social media. Patients share their struggles with chronic pain and the impact of insurance decisions on their treatment. We work tirelessly to secure necessary medications, often spending countless hours on appeals. Even experienced healthcare administrators find the process exhausting. Recently, an insurance company reversed a denial after our appeal, highlighting the importance of persistence. Patients question how insurers determine their treatment needs, especially when it affects their quality of life. The current health insurance system in the U.S. is deeply flawed and needs reform.

Speaker 0 describes smart meters as more than just electricity meters, asserting they function as personal surveillance devices. They claim smart meters sense when devices are turned on or off, measure watt usage (even for small devices like an electric toothbrush), and transmit that data wirelessly through neighbors’ meters to the power company. The data allegedly records electric consumption every minute, stored forever on computers the public cannot access, revealing when someone is home, asleep, on vacation, hosting visitors, using lamps or tools, running a business from home, or bootlegging energy off the grid. The speaker asserts this creates a vivid profile of private living patterns and indicates at-home presence on the night of a murder. The speaker contends this is not electrical metering but personal surveillance—a warrantless search daily. They claim personal life information travels from the meter to the power company, to the government, police, and insurance companies, and to anyone who partners with the power company to access it. The speaker further asserts that even without a direct data-sharing agreement, information can be intercepted via the wireless signal from the meter, because smart meters are radio transmitters. They identify a one-watt radio station licensed by the FCC as the transmitter sending all electrical life details to a data center. Examples are given of authorities in Ohio, Texas, and British Columbia using smart meter data to pinpoint marijuana grow houses, enforce business licenses, and punish private home activities, implying surveillance beyond what residents accept. The claim is made that the power company can sell personal life data to anyone, and that unusual power usage patterns can be used as probable cause to raid a home for growing marijuana or running a computer server without a license. The speaker describes this level of surveillance as “about as big brother as it gets,” with utility workers going door-to-door to install meters. They express a personal opinion that smart meters should be removed from homes, arguing that power companies cannot claim the right to install surveillance devices on residences. They equate smart meters with wiretapping and note wiretapping is illegal in all U.S. states and federal territories. The speaker asserts that allowing a smart meter is tantamount to walking around with a constant webcam on one’s head and accuses the industry of relying on implied consent—the idea that permission is granted if the utility can change the meter, even if residents don’t understand the scope of what’s happening. As a practical step, the speaker advises telling utilities not to change the meter, noting that older meters were billed successfully. They claim to have sent a certified letter denying installation of a smart meter and mention a copy of their letter is available in the video’s description for viewers to adapt. They state post office certified mail is used to obtain a receipt. The speaker concludes that if the meters are installed on every house in America, it would cease to be America.

I received a letter from United denying my patient's overnight stay, and I want to share it fully. My previous statements were honest, and I’m open to questions about the letter. I refuse to be silenced by threats when advocating for my patients and addressing issues in the healthcare system. Speaking out is essential for maintaining my integrity and making a difference. As a woman caring for women with breast cancer, I am committed to this cause. I encourage everyone to share this story and stand up against the powerful healthcare organizations. It’s vital for us all to tell our stories to drive change, and I am dedicated to this mission.

I received a letter from my health insurance stating they won't cover one of my chemotherapy sessions costing $15,000. My doctor had previously confirmed approval for my treatment, so I'm confused and worried this could mean they won't cover future sessions. I rely on chemotherapy every three weeks for my stage 4 cancer, and I can't afford that cost. If they stop covering it, my doctor might have to switch me to a cheaper treatment that may not work as effectively. My recent MRI showed my tumors have shrunk slightly, but the risk of nerve damage and paralysis was real. This letter feels like a threat to my life, as it jeopardizes my access to life-saving treatment.

You want to talk to her? I can get her on the call. We're dealing with a lot of denials—about 50 a week. My name is Julie, the practice manager. We’ve faced backlash from insurance companies like Aetna and Cigna for speaking out on social media. Patients describe their struggles with chronic pain and the impact on their lives. After starting treatment, one patient felt relief, only to face insurance denials for necessary infusions. We work hard to appeal these decisions, spending countless hours on cases. Even experienced administrators find the process exhausting. However, we’ve had success in getting approvals after appeals. Patients deserve better; insurance companies shouldn’t dictate their quality of life. The health insurance system in the U.S. is fundamentally flawed and needs change.

The current state of American healthcare involves a lengthy process for getting insurance approval for necessary procedures. A cardiologist submitted a request for a patient’s procedure, but it was denied, requiring additional information. After resubmitting data, the insurance company still denied the request, necessitating a peer-to-peer review. This involved scheduling a phone call with an insurance-employed doctor, which took nearly two weeks of back-and-forth communication and long hold times. Ultimately, despite all efforts, the procedure is likely to be denied again.

UnitedHealthcare has allegedly disappointed a speaker because they denied a patient's MRI with advanced sequences needed for tumor surgery and also denied a peer-to-peer review. The speaker thought things would improve after public complaints, but claims UnitedHealthcare is removing avenues for appealing denials by replacing peer-to-peer reviews with a form that will be faxed back at an unspecified time. The speaker states the patient needs the MRI for safer brain tumor surgery. The speaker implores UnitedHealthcare to simplify the appeal process if they continue to deny crucial scans or labs necessary for safe patient care.

Eighty-five percent of Americans report negative experiences with pre-authorization. In 2023, the Medicare Advantage Program, covering 32 million people, denied 3.2 million initial prior authorization requests. Physicians handle about 40 pre-authorization requests weekly, spending around twelve hours on related paperwork. This frustrates doctors, delays care, and erodes trust in the healthcare system. Health and Human Services and CMS are pursuing private solutions to address prior authorization issues. A recent roundtable with CEOs representing 75% of all covered lives in America, approximately 260 million people across Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, and commercial insurance, addressed this problem. There is significant industry interest in resolving these issues.

Medical bills can be confusing, as seen in the case of an emergency appendectomy that cost $90,000, which insurance initially refused to cover, questioning its necessity. This situation highlights the issues with health insurance regulations in the U.S., where insurance companies have significant control over what is deemed necessary medical care. To manage costs, insurers implement measures like utilization management and prior authorization, which can lead to denials of coverage. These practices are longstanding and often criticized by physicians, who advocate for policy changes. While Medicare is making some adjustments, progress is slow.

I just had a frustrating call with an insurance company regarding a patient's care. The insurance doctor questioned why I ordered certain treatments for a baby, despite established guidelines. I had the guidelines in front of me, but she didn't even have her password to access them. After explaining the medical necessity, she reluctantly agreed to approve the request but suggested that maybe the baby didn’t need such intensive care. I firmly stated that we take infant health very seriously. It’s disheartening to see some doctors prioritize insurance profits over patient care. There should be a clear line drawn when it comes to the value of human life in medicine.

UnitedHealthcare hired Clairlocks, a firm known to threaten journalists. Doctor Elizabeth Potter publicly called out health insurance, going viral after she stepped out of surgery to deal with a United rep. Potter alleges UnitedHealthcare is retaliating against her, potentially bankrupting Redbud Surgery Center, which she opened in 2024 to reconstruct living breast tissue using patients’ own skin and fat. The center is not in network with them. Potter says United's communication stopped after her viral video. She says being out of network would be 'a huge deal' and financially devastating, and that 'they demanded she take down her viral video and apologize.' United claims the decision came before the video. The story notes other actions against media: The New York Times, The Guardian, and Bill Ackman; Potter raised over $500,000 to keep Redbud open.

Dr. Potter is speaking with an unnamed doctor from United Healthcare to discuss a patient's breast reconstruction. Dr. Potter wants to understand why United is denying coverage for a procedure to preserve sensation, involving dissecting the fourth intercostal nerve and grafting it to dermatosensory elements on the nipple. Dr. Potter requests the evaluation and reasoning behind United's decision, wanting to review the data and references used, but is told it's an internal resource and cannot be emailed. Dr. Potter cites data from 2023 and 2024 supporting the procedure's effectiveness and emphasizes that this is the patient's only chance for sensation preservation. Dr. Potter expresses concern that United is practicing medicine by making medical determinations and states they will file an internal appeal. Dr. Potter voices frustration at not being able to speak with the United doctor as a peer.