She literally called me at the time of the appointment to tell me she can’t see me. She was so apologetic, but was like “I absolutely can treat you, but I’m not allowed by your insurance”. Fuck this country.

Update: I went to urgent care. Before leaving home, I called to be sure they would accept my insurance (Aetna). They said yes… After arriving for my appointment, they told me they do not accept my insurance. I will simply leave without paying.

Final Update: I can understand that that differences in physical biology demand different attention. That’s not what I’m complaining about. It’s the way it’s set up. I was told that at my appointment. Why not just refer me to a specialist? The website could’ve even just referred me to urgent care (yes, my insurance requires a primary care physician’s referral for urgent care, according to the urgent care facility). But, no, their goal is to obfuscate and irritate until the patient gives you and pays out-of-pocket.

I was able to receive care at a cost I could not afford. I won’t discuss what I had to do to “find” the money to pay for care and prescriptions. That being said, the condition I was diagnosed with was more serious than a simple infection, and I’m glad that I saw a doctor. I need further treatment and just hope I can get insurance to cover any of it.

If you’re an American reading this, please consider ways to get involved in organizing in support of Medicare For All in your community. Here is one resource I have found. We don’t need to live like this. We deserve better. Stay safe and healthy, friends.

  • guyman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sounds like discrimination based on sex. A clear violation of the Civil Rights act of 1964.

    • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Car insurance companies are literally allowed to discriminate by sex and will openly tell you that they do so, why would health insurance be different?

      • UniquesNotUseful@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits different treatment of insured persons on the basis of their sex in connection with pension funds. This was a supreme court ruling, so kind of linked but not quite.

        https://www.jstor.org/stable/253100

        Interestingly, in UK and EU it became illegal to discriminate by sex for car insurance from about 2012, without very careful use of data - which doesn’t happen. It is allowed to be linked on things like jobs though.

        • STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          newsflash: US never cared about civil rights and despite it being “law” it gets regularly ignored on an institutional scale

    • average650@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It might be, but some health related coverage is legitimately divided along sex lines. I don’t know what the answer is, but it might not be so simple.

      Stupid either way though.

  • nightscout@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    So a few things. This is a CVS minute-clinic visit, not a visit to a general provider. The minute clinics have contracts with insurance companies that look a bit different in terms of what and who they are permitted by the insurance companies to treat. There are some really odd variations in these contracts by insurance companies for reasons that are not always grounded in science.

    This, as you’ve noted, is an unfortunate reality of a for-profit health care system that is dictated by private companies, insurance companies, and mind-bogglingly complex contracts that sit between providers and patients. The most annoying part IMO is that insurance companies provide zero transparency into these contracts and the justification behind decisions. It’s all “business decisions” at the end of the day, not decisions that are medically sound and in the best interest of the patient.

    And for those wondering why OP maybe just didn’t go to a “regular doctor” - the U.S. has a horrible shortage of general practitioners (primary care) physicians. This shortage is worse in some areas than others. And even if you’re lucky to live in an area that has general practitioners, the waiting list to get into their practices might be long. This leaves many people relying on a “doc in the box” aka CVS Minute Clinic or some similar outfit. These doc in the box clinics often only have a nurse or nurse practitioner on site, with a supervising physician off side. They are for-profit entities and they work with the insurance companies to design their contracts to maximize profit.

    If you ever find yourself in OP’s physician, one easy way to get around this is to indicate that the visit is for something more general, like abdominal pain or unexplained fever. While the staff still might refer you off to another provider, it might be a good way to at least “get in” with someone.

    Another option is to visit a local urgent care clinic if one is available and covered by insurance. These are often staffed by actual physicians so they can treat a wider range of conditions. Many often even have testing facilities right on site for a number of issues.

    Finally, another option is to call your insurance company and see if they have an over-the-phone nurse consultant available. They can usually help direct you to the right location for treatment based on your symptoms and insurance coverage.

    But yes, OP, I agree with you that we need something better. Medicaid and Medicare have slowly been expanding and my hope is that they will eventually expand enough to cover all Americans. it has been proven that they can still operate without completely decimating the insurance industry (see Medicare and Medicaid managed care). While I don’t agree with for-profit health insurance, the reality is that they are a lobbying force that has to be worked with if we are going to get everyone universal coverage.

    Source: Health policy professional by trade, extensive experience within the health care industry

      • musicalcactus@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        And it’s not like we learn this stuff in school. It’s not written out anywhere. We have to rely on word of mouth, people with experience, or people like the commenter above you who are familiar with the ins and outs.

        The bottom line is that it is complicated on purpose and designed to wear you out so you don’t get coverage for your most basic human needs - like peeing without your urethra being on fire.

        • Rando@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Back in my day we always pee’d with our urethra on fire after we walked to school and back uphill both ways - and we liked it!

          • Confuzzeled@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Back in my day we peed on each other around the fire and instead of school a man would come around the house and hit us over the head with an encyclopaedia for 6 hours in the hope we’d learn by osmosis, and we were happy to have that.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You should really look into the history of modern US healthcare. Johnson nearly passed a public health system. They consciously decided to go with this instead. This is absolutely by design. The people in charge simply fire anyone not making a profit until they find someone willing to do anything to create a profit, legal or not. (See Wells Fargo for this too, it’s an old playbook at this point.) They play naive but they are totally aware of what is done to create those profits.

            Also we recently found this with the Opiate stuff too and that entire family exchanging messages clearly indicating they knew the illegal activities and lies being told for profit. They just played dumb publicly.

          • markr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No sorry that is wrong. The need for profit and growth in profit absolutely pushes health insurance organizations to limit their costs, and denying service is routine, planned and not some mysterious accident.

              • markr@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                undefined> The real kicker is you’re wrong. It’s not designed that way. That’s just a happy accident of capitalism run amok. Almost no one involved in the system is an intentionally bad actor. Almost everyone wants to do the right, good thing.

                That statement.,

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just ask yourself, could a rich person make money off of this? And it all falls into place. Over the last several decades the people of the United States have been increasingly treated like a mined resource.

      • The-Weapon-X@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        First world country which treats its citizens as third world, that’s what we live in. Follow the money, because if something isn’t making money for someone, then we don’t get it.

        • EchoVerse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A lot, and I do mean it, of third-world countries have better access to medical care and universal healthcare than the US.

  • justhach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The entirely of modern America could be summarized with “Mildly Infiruating”, tbh.

    It is utterly baffling to me how the US has not figured out nationalized healthcare. Literally every other developped nation in the western hemisphere has at this point.

    Its crazy that a politician could come out and say “my number one priority is to ensure that every American has access to healthcare, paid for by the state”, and would instantly be villified by like half the country.

    • throwaway38575061@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      A handful of bastards at the top are making unfathomable amounts of wealth at the cost of the lives and future of the country. A majority of the country is in support of nationalizing health care. I’ve even met conservatives who agree. It’s these sick fucking parasites who won’t allow us to have it.

      All the fuckers writing the laws have socialized healthcare. It’s the untouchables who don’t.

    • golamas1999@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The covid national emergency is declared over. Potentially up to 15 million people will lose Medicaid expansion. Florida already kicked off 600,000 people. An 87 year old who had a daily care taker lost access even though they were qualified after the cut. A 7 year old boy will now die because they took access to his leukemia treatment. About half the people still qualify but they are making everyone reapply.

      My dad some how affords stupidly expensive healthcare. Premiums are $4,000 a month. ER copay is $1000. ER deductible is $18,400 per family. My mom is now on a medication that costs $1400 a day. With other meds her medication is $15,800 a month for the rest of her life (she is 59). With insurance it goes down to $28 She has had $100,000 in medical bills. She has some super rare condition. Our insurance said one of the out of network doctors was covered. My mom verified multiple times. Now they don’t want to cover that doctor so we are stuck with a $25,000 medical bill. My mom says she will put it on the lowest amount a month for the rest of her life.

      In other words if my dad couldn’t afford this insurance she probably would be dead now or in a few months.

      Crazy is that we are all Canadian and if we lived there we could go on OHIP plus extra insurance for a few hundred bucks a month. For those who say Canadian’s have wait times, so do we. The difference is you will be seen and will not go medically bankrupt or denied care because you are too poor.

      The excuse is that Canadians come to America for better doctors with lower wait times. They do. But when you realize they come to the States they don’t have long term insurance. Meaning they pay out of pocket. So it’s wealthy Canadians that can afford insanely high prices.

      All my family in Canada says my father is pissing away money. He is.

      God Bless American Healthcare! /s

      TLDR Doug Ford can sod off and go to hell.

      • TskUghPfftUhh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cancer and other life saving drugs in Canada can still be very expensive, we don’t have universal drug coverage in Ontario. You can get coverage if your income is below a certain threshold (ie you are very poor) but if you don’t have drug insurance here you are still fucked and can go into debt trying to stay alive or not suffer. It’s better than America but it’s not all sunshine and rainbows up here either.

    • Sunrosa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because the healthcare industry makes money. A shitload of money. Why would they “fix” that? The problem is the fact that it is an industry.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      American healthcare and insurance is only “mildly infuriating” if you’ve never had to deal with it. If you had, you’d probably characterize it as “goddamn fucking enraging.”

  • porkins@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are presuming that it is a UTI and and coding it wrong for insurance purposes. Do a visit for something more generalized that is covered like abdominal pain and doctor will know how to code it properly for insurance.

  • salt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are you sure this isn’t just a CVS thing? It says the same thing for me and I know my insurance covers UTIs for everyone. Maybe try an urgent care?

    • DRx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is correct… there is 2 things to remember here

      1. CVS only has nurse practitioners, nurses, or pharmacists that are doing the screening, and must refer for certain cases
      2. There are 2 types of UTIs….
      • complicated and uncomplicated
      • Men ALWAYS have a complicated uti due to the anatomy of where the uti is located
      • women can have either, these NPs are only allowed to treat UNCOMPLICATED UTIS and must refer all complicated cases to a physician.

      FYI it has nothing to do with insurance

    • Neuron
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah it’s a minute clinic thing, and probably to do with how much insurance companies are willing to pay for such a short visit in that care setting. A real urgent care would absolutely be able to see them for this, and should have no trouble billing insurance. CVS wants low hanging fruit easy to address complaints only.

  • haxguru@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are the people in the comments bots or real people? It’s too good to be true that so many people have switched to Lemmy!!

  • BurnTheRight@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There is a cause and there is a solution for our disgusting system.

    Conservatives (including neo-liberals) serve corporations, not citizens. If we can marginalize conservatives (including neo-liberals), then we can have nice things like the other 31 developed nations on earth.

    This cannot improve while conservatives (including neo-liberals) have power in our nation’s government. Period.

    • Nobody5585@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unless you are unemployed. Then you have to pay the unemployed tax (GSS) whether you use the healthcare services or not.

      • x4740N@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That sounds so fucking stupid

        You’re unemployed so pay us money you can’t recoup until we make you homeless

      • assa123@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That sounds expensive. So when you don’t have an income source they charge you a tax for it?

        • PKRockin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It makes sense if you think about it (assuming my thoughts are correct, I’m in the US). If you’re employed, you are contributing through your taxes. Just because you’re unemployed, it doesn’t mean your contributions pause. Now, should they? That’s a good question, but the current implementation makes sense. I imagine it does incentivize people to look for employment.

          • funkless@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            there is so much money in the world, and food/water, and housing that literally everyone - theoretically - could be fed and healthy without needing to pick on the unemployed first.

            • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not a matter of amount, it’s a matter of allocation. You have water shortages in a lot of places because agriculture uses massive amounts of potable water to irrigate (and can afford to do so- because water is and should be cheap). If agriculture were more efficient, we would have a lot more potable water- but making it more efficient takes money, resources, work, and ongoing maintenance. Similarly, the existence of vacant housing and homeless people doesn’t imply that we have enough housing to go around. A lot of vacant housing is vacant for a reason- it’s not ok to be shoving homeless people into collapsing apartments, unsafe buildings, a sixth-floor walkup when they’re in a wheelchair, etc. Food also is way more than the production cost, it’s also transporting the food to a place where it can be made available, keeping the food fresh and safe, and preparing it. For a lot of countries with an unstable food supply, the problem is much less that they don’t have enough food and more that it’s difficult or unsafe to get food to the tables of people who are hungry.

              This might have been implied in your comment but it’s far more nuanced than “we just need to care more about feeding everybody”- there are real tradeoffs and real commitment of real work and resources, and important sacrifices both known and unknown to any system you design.

            • PKRockin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              We can discuss where the money comes from, but the idea isn’t pie-in-the-sky wild. I don’t disagree with you.

  • Lurch@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a CVS thing and not an insurance provider issue. If you go to an in-network provider, they will treat your UTI.

    Two years ago I passed a kidney stone, that led to a UTI, and then sepsis. My insurance treated me without blinking. In fact, the only out-of-pocket costs I paid, was a $50 co-pay for the ER/hospital stay, and $8 co-pay for my aftercare antibiotic.

  • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    A lesson I learned the hard way is the only way you can tell what your insurance actually covers is to read the fine print. The insurance company service reps can’t be relied upon and the medical office reps just make up an answer if they don’t know. Nor can you be sure the coverage statement from the insurance company is right wen they finally send it. That’s wrong a significant percent of the time too.

  • axtualdave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    My friend, you need to do two things –

    One, get treated. It seems you’ve visited urgent care. They are “real” doctors and, assuming the hospital or clinic the urgent care is associated with is well-staffed and stocked, should be able to get your sorted today. Be sure to get any prescriptions you need filled on-site, if possible, before you leave.

    Two, review your healthcare plan. While the Affordable Care Act mandated certain minimum coverages several things happened since that allow people to purchase plans that do not conform to the ACA mandates. On those so-called “catastrophic” plans, insurers can deny or decline to cover all sorts of things. Patients often simply shop by monthly premium cost and don’t check coverages. Make sure your health plan is ACA-compliant, and, if not, look into a way to get covered by a compliant plan.

    If it IS ACA-compliant, then treating a UTI, even in a male, is covered. You may be selecting providers that are not in-network, or do not have the proper staffing to treat this fairly rare condition, though. It may be worth a visit to your primary care provider if you can’t get something like CVS or another “Doc in a Box” to treat it.

  • bumbly@readit.buzz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is why mens’ rights activists exist. Unfortunately, just like the feminist movement, they were invaded by psychopaths.