This is the problem with missing context, implied meaning, and prior talking points in the spotlight.
CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield did admit in a 2020 House hearing that hospitals have a monetary gain if they inflate covid numbers. That's disturbing. Why would he say that .
This leaves out context around the statement. The implied meaning people read is "COVID hospital numbers are overstated, it's not as big a deal as people think". That may or may not be the desired message, there's no way to tell without any more context. It's definitely how people read it.
CMS reimburses hospitals at up to more than twice the rate for Covid patients. Like it or not, it does create an opportunity for hospitals to work the system.
Without any more context, this post appears to double down on that statement. It may not mean to say, but people are still reading "Hospitals cheat, COVID hospital numbers are overstated, COVID is not a big deal". This may be a comment intended for a specific technical component of billing, but it was in reply to an implied conspiracy statement. This makes it look like it's really about that statement and not just some small technical detail.
It was from last summer. An internet search should provide a lot of sources.
Look, some of the numbers were being inflated. Not to any significant amount in the end by any means. Colorado had to reclassify just over 10% of its reported Covid deaths due to some of this. People took the info and ran with it, creating what I think was a narrative that it was happening a whole lot more than it was. One could also counter that the overall number of Covid cases has been undercounted as well, as many experts have suggested.
Deflection to "just search on your own". Double down with a very old stat for what looks like an isolated early issue. No extra context. This is reinforcing what people read before: "Hospitals cheat, COVID hospital numbers are overstated, COVID is not a big deal".
I’m glad you see it that way. Unfortunately not all do. When CMS reports over 50 billion in costs annually due to fraud, we know it’s happening. I’ve seen and helped investigate it. If there’s an opportunity, people will take it.
Double down again, hospital cheat, to a huge dollar value. Other posters are definitely hearing "Hospitals cheat, COVID hospital numbers are overstated, COVID is not a big deal". There's no other context to suggest otherwise.
I was a hospital administrator for over 15 years. I know exactly how hospitals are paid, and where the majority of reimbursement comes from.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield agreed that some hospitals have a monetary incentive to overcount coronavirus deaths as they do deaths for other diseases.“I think you’re correct in that we’ve seen this in other disease processes, too. Really, in the HIV...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Statement of authority, post from an "examiner" source, incomplete context around the information. No extra context about the impact. Everyone reading this is reacting as if it's screaming at them: "Hospitals cheat, COVID hospital numbers are overstated, COVID is not a big deal".
I think we are mostly saying the same thing. There have been cases of administrators pressuring physicians. The impact is minimal. Again, some have taken the known instances and blown it up it something it wasn’t.
Some context and walk back. This seems to be the message you meant. But, it's clearly not what people were hearing. As evidence, all the replies to the unstated but implied message of "Hospitals cheat, COVID hospital numbers are overstated, COVID is not a big deal".
Please don’t. You’re creating a straw man. Go back and read everything I’ve written. I’ve repeatedly said the impacts are minimal, and it’s happening on only a small scale.
The last post, and this one included the "minimal" and that it doesn't really impact any stats in any meaningful way.
Which all means, you probably didn't mean to amplify a conspiracy theory that "Hospitals cheat, COVID hospital numbers are overstated, COVID is not a big deal", but that's exactly what everyone was hearing in your posts. The other replies all represent replies to that implied statement, pointing out that it's wrong.