Probably the part where people were denied care that they needed in order to provide profits and dividends to its shareholders.
2. Profits to shareholders and other people contributing their time and resources are also "needed", as without profits the only incentive to provide healthcare is charity, and charity has not proven to be an effective organizing principle to allocate the time and attention of millions of individuals in a complex society.
> Everyone is going to die eventually
So why provide healthcare at all?
And health insurers don't increase shareholder returns by denying claims. Due to the minimum medical loss ratio it's rather the opposite. Most of the pressure to tighten coverage rules actually comes from large self-funded employers who use those insurers not to provide insurance but rather to administer their health plans.
https://www.cms.gov/marketplace/private-health-insurance/med...
Insurance companies have too much power in this dynamic, and there should be limits to what they can deny once doctors deem it needed.
When the decision maker is accountant, RN, or AI versus physician, I know who _shouldn't_ be deciding it.
The two experiences I've seen first hand (coincidentally both UHC):
A willingness to deny vastly improved QOL for a simple surgery unless I spend an extended amount of time to determine whether somehow, a nasal spray would straighten the cartilage of a 95% deviation to the septum.
As a paramedic, the realization that UHC routinely denied paying for HEMS (air ambulance) for serious car accident patients to trauma centers because of "lack of pre-authorization".