patrick.net

When my son was delivered through C-section. The total bill came out to more than $100K. I thought C-section was rather a simple procedure. I saw another lady who was there. She didn't pay the bill, because she was low income. I guess I am paying a part of her bill. Otherwise, I don't see how a hospital can stay in a business.

We are all paying a part of her bill. The hospital receives federal, state & local monies to keep hospitals providing charity care.

Nobody says

When my son was delivered through C-section. The total bill came out to more than $100K.

The better question is, did you really need a C-section, or was it done mainly so they could bill $100k? No other country has nearly as high a % of C-sections as the United States, but plenty of other countries have lower rates of infant mortality. C-sections have been done for thousands of years, but weren't nearly so common before they became so lucrative, and still aren't nearly so common in places where they aren't so lucrative.

Regarding the OP, it is wildly optimistic and unfounded to call the realtor's surgery "life-saving." We don't know yet what the result will be. According to the article, the 45-year-old realtor has endured a series of surgeries, the cancer has spread, and the insurer calls the procedure experimental or exploratory. For all we know, it might turn out to be life-ending surgery. BTW, the realtor has insurance, which is going to be mandatory for almost everyone starting next year. Speaker Pelosi said, "Never trust the insurance companies." Then she voted to make most people do exactly that, which is why she is no longer Speaker.

At least this guy got his surgery (the man in the story).

Weird. Why would they consider removing tumors as "experimental surgery"?

Homeboy says

Weird. Why would they consider removing tumors as "experimental surgery"?

They don't. They consider the procedures/surgeries as "experimental" and "exploratory" in nature. Insurance companies often require that a medical procedure be thoroughly tested and proven effective before they decide to cover it. Unfortunately, it's a lengthy process and people with life-threatening illnesses don't always have time to wait.

Homeboy says

Weird. Why would they consider removing tumors as "experimental surgery"?

Because they didn't want to pay.

Suburban Gal says

Homeboy says

Weird. Why would they consider removing tumors as "experimental surgery"?

They don't. They consider the procedures/surgeries as "experimental" and "exploratory" in nature. Insurance companies often require that a medical procedure be thoroughly tested and proven effective before they decide to cover it. Unfortunately, it's a lengthy process and people with life-threatening illnesses don't always have time to wait.

Sorry, I don't follow. I asked why they consider the surgery experimental, then you wrote "they don't", and wrote that they consider the surgery experimental. Did you mean to write "they DO"?

Maybe I should be more plain in my meaning. Haven't doctors been removing tumors for hundreds if not thousands of years? Would not the testing phase of tumor removal surgery have been completed by now?