Insurers Take Another Cinematic Hit!
The latest sequel in the “Saw” movie series channels the public’s wrath against health insurers by targeting those in claims for its slice and dice genre–yet another example of how pop culture continues to capitalize on the industry’s poor reputation.
I’ve been on a crusade the past two years to speak out about the insurance industry’s reputational risk, and to convince insurers to take ownership of the problem. I’ve pointed out negative stereotypes about insurance perpetuated on TV shows and in the movies.
The latest example is in “Saw VI.” I’ve never seen any of these films, but since Hollywood has produced six of them, I imagine they are quite popular, particularly with the younger generation–those coming of age as future insurance consumers, that is.
Well, the review in New York Newsday certainly grabbed my interest, since it mentioned that health insurers are at the center of the latest cinematic blood fest.
“After years of elaborately torturing murders, philanderers and plain old mean people, the ’Saw’ franchise is finally spearing a big fish–the health care industry,” says critic Rafer Guzman.
(Actually, he means the health insurance industry, not doctors, nurses or hospital personnel–a common mistake being made daily by those in Washington crafting reform legislation. When they say “health care reform,” all they really mean these days is “health insurance reform.)
In any case, the critic reports that “the prime victim” in the film is “an insurance veep who invented a mathematical formula to weed the potential sickies from the healthies.” (I guess it’s lucky that President Obama’s plan to prohibit insurers from excluding those with preexisting conditions has not come to fruition, or else the director might have had to pick a different target, right?)
The “veep” also “runs a team of claims analysts, nicknamed ‘the dog pit,’ which hunts for ways to deny treatment to patients. You can guess what happens to these folks, and it’s nastier than anything we’ve heard out of Abu Ghraib,” Mr. Guzman notes.
The critic goes on to report that through all the torture and carnage, “the sadistic madman Jigsaw speaks in lofty tones about corporate greed and political impotence. Talk about populist anger!” (Sounds like a few prominent consumer advocates I know!)
With tongue not so firmly in cheek, Mr. Guzman wonders whether it is “possible that the latest ‘Saw’ flick will tip the balance of the [health reform] debate? Will the HMOs realize, in Lyndon Johnson fashion, that if they’ve lost ‘Saw,’ they’ve lost Middle America?”
The review’s “bottom line” synopsis is that the film is “amusingly topical–who doesn’t want to torture his HMO?….” Indeed, who does not?
“Saw” certainly is not as damaging as Michael Moore’s “Sicko” to the industry’s reputation, but every little bit hurts.
What do you folks think?
Entries (RSS)
I think it’s sad that the focus is so firmly on the “middleman.” Sure, health insurers are trying to keep their loss costs low, but no one says anything about the hospital that charges a honking big markup on the retail cost of a cancer drug (retail was $1,500, hospital charged $40,000, we had to pay; hospital said, “We’re entitled to make a profit on our services.”), or the doctors who have paid off their collge bills, live in the mansions and drive the jaguars, and charge who-knows-what for a 10-minute office visit that the nurse-practitioner could do for barely a working wage.
Do I sound angry? Yeah!! If the goal is for insurance to pay the bills, let’s talk about keeping the bills reasonable, rather than chiding the carriers for trying to balance what’s coming in with what’s going out. The rest of us have to balance our budgets, too; we generally have to pay for what we get.
SAM RESPONDS:
I agree that this debate has focused much too heavily on health insurance reform, and not nearly enough on health care reform. But seeing what my doctors have been paid for major surgery or even office visits on my statement of benefits these days, I doubt any of them are about to be living in mansions. Auto mechanics make more on lube jobs. In fact, I am surprised they can afford their malpractice insurance!
You are right in arguing that hospitals should not be able to price-gouge on drug markups, but I think most are doing so to shift costs for the uninsured expenses they absorb, which should be cut down considerably if millions more have coverage.
I have to agree with Sam on this one. Hospitals gouge those who have no insurance and can afford (I use the term “afford” loosely) to pay the bill, and the insurance carriers who have clients with large deductibles where the client will be paying a big chunk of the bill.
The HMOs have contracts, often paying only ten percent of the actual billed charges, so a $40,000 bill often settles out for $3,500 or less and the patient’s share might be $700 at a 20% co-pay.
Sometimes that includes physician fees, sometimes not, but with an HMO, it’s the same practice. And they will only pay that percentage of what’s called “usual and customary” and the rest is disallowed.
Sure, the doctor and the hospitals might overcharge, but they know they will be getting only a fraction of the actual charges. Is it right to overcharge? Absolutely not, but it does happen.
Some hospitals here in Southern California have gone bankrupt and closed their doors, as a result of giving away their services for so long to the uninsured and illegal population. That places a severe burden on the remaining hospitals to fill the needs of the residents and visitors alike.
Emergency Rooms are jammed, acute care beds are often not available for many hours, patients are shunted to other hospitals miles away as ERs go on “bypass” when they can’t handle the loads. The taxpayers won’t pass bond measures to build new hospitals and additions, as they see all the free care going to illegals and other non-residents.
We need health care reform that provides coverage for everyone and a fair reimbursement for services rendered, no matter where the service is provided, as well as a plan that eliminates targeting the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions and one that is affordable.
Seems simple enough, but once the government gets involved……who knows?
We need to have them watch “The Shining,” and then they will understand how we feel when dealing with all the ” CRAZIES ” from government mandates to bogus claims.
Just watched “60 Minutes” this week and the FRAUD in the government health care field is now a source of profit for organized crime. There are lower penalities–both monetarily and jail time–than selling drugs on the street.
Actually in Denmark their tax rate is 50%, and that includes HOSPITALIZATION AND A COLLEGE EDUCATION.
All we get is an overabundance of greenhouse GAS from both sides pointing fingers. Next time you point your finger, take the time to look how many fingers are directed in a different direction. Then ask yourself who is too blame for the situation–we are exhaling those same greenhouse gases.
Take a step back, use your brain and find some middle ground. Stand up, shake hands and go have a cold beer.
Insurance is its own worst enemy, from trying to gain market share to squeezing the claimant when they need us the most. Who has not heard those stories that would make “The Shining” a bedtime story to your children?
The same mentality applies to the government, the mail service and I won’t elaborate on the third promise of “HONESTY.”
Someone has to take the first step to mend this broken fence, and and until that process begins, Sam, unfortunately there is little hope for a valid argument to defend our industry.
There is nothing wrong with our present system of health care that a few band-aids can’t fix–albeit a bit expensive ones.
We need additional taxation without the current threshold limits on Social Security and Medicare taxes. In other words, tax every dollar earned all the way to the top, for all ages and all types of earnings.
Now we have put Social Security and Medicare in the black forever (perhaps).
Set up a federal health care bond program so the new income will have earnings–Wha La!–the second band-aid.
From the massive new federal funds from bond earnings, we should then target the money for the indigent and needy people and the clinics, hospitals and health care workers that qualify.
Money–lots of new money, after all, is what we are looking for to solve our three biggest problems.