The company says it is protecting nursing home residents by curbing unnecessary hospital transfers. Whistleblowers allege cost-cutting tactics have endangered the elderly
For that one person, yes. But I’m asking how the whole “delay, deny, defend” tactic allows them to pocket additional profit that they don’t otherwise have to pay out in healthcare or rebates.
The exact same thing works for multiple people, especially when averaged out. If they avoid spending a bunch of money on 10 people the average spending overall goes down. Even if they have a limit on how much they can profit, doing this pretty much guarantees a profit while sending them to the hospital every time it is necessary means less likelihood of making a profit because it costs them more both in payments and the internal costs of processing the payments.
Is the concept of spending less means they get to keep more of what they collect too complicated?
It is based on flawed assumptions and a complete misunderstanding of how business works. Not understanding the basics of ‘paying less out means for profit companies get to keep more money’ means I don’t really have a way to explain why it is bad. Like just understanding that basic concept should make it easy to see why your math is bad.
They take in the same amount of money and pay less because the person doesn’t go to the hospital.
For that one person, yes. But I’m asking how the whole “delay, deny, defend” tactic allows them to pocket additional profit that they don’t otherwise have to pay out in healthcare or rebates.
The exact same thing works for multiple people, especially when averaged out. If they avoid spending a bunch of money on 10 people the average spending overall goes down. Even if they have a limit on how much they can profit, doing this pretty much guarantees a profit while sending them to the hospital every time it is necessary means less likelihood of making a profit because it costs them more both in payments and the internal costs of processing the payments.
Is the concept of spending less means they get to keep more of what they collect too complicated?
I see you’ve downvoted all my comments here, so you know I’ve already laid out how the math works for each scenario.
Your math was bad and you seem unable to grasp extremely basic concepts of how companies work.
What part of my math was bad?
Yes.
So all of it?
Yes.
It is based on flawed assumptions and a complete misunderstanding of how business works. Not understanding the basics of ‘paying less out means for profit companies get to keep more money’ means I don’t really have a way to explain why it is bad. Like just understanding that basic concept should make it easy to see why your math is bad.