• Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    The unrealistic thing about this is the time frame. For a stay that happened at the end of November, to have a reply in hand two weeks later is unreal.

    • methodicalaspect@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      With UHC, this is not unrealistic in the slightest.

      I had a follow-up appointment with a specialist I’ve been seeing last Friday. My lab results didn’t show the progress we were expecting, so we decided to attack the issue with a particular medication. This medication is injectable, not a pill like the ones I’ve been taking that have proven to be ineffective, and it’s sold under three names; we discussed all three, and before I left the office, he submitted the prior authorization request.

      Given that I’m insured by UHC, the prior authorization was denied. Not only was it denied, they robo-called me to say so, sent a letter via mail, and put a copy of the letter in PDF form on my account, before I got home from the doctor’s office.

      Not only that, but the section of the letter where they’re supposed to recommend alternate drugs was blank. So basically, “we’re not going to cover that, you can keep suffering, go fuck yourself” in less than 15 minutes.

      UHC is exceedingly efficient at not giving a shit.

      • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        Wow that sucks. When the first discussions of Obamacare came up, Republicans should have went with “we don’t need govt death panels, we have death panels at home!”