It's apparently quite common with the more expensive treatments, says my research scientist mate at Eli Lilly's.
That might be true in in situations where a less expensive treatment is an available option. Though it's not really the insurance company deciding what care is received, but rather what they will pay for. Though isn't that also true with nationalized care? If there's more than one treatment and the patient opts for the more expensive one, might they expect some out of pocket expense?
It is true in quite a few situations where a more expensive treatment also happens to be the better one. Yes, they only decide what they will pay for but in practical terms, what's the difference?
Not sure what you're asking. You said it's a flaw in the US system, but in practical terms am seeing there's not much difference with nationalized care where the government decides what treatment they will pay for.
The government does not decide what treatment we get here.
My point was about the insurance company deciding what they'll pay for. Yes, you can opt for a more expensive treatment but where do you get the money from? We're not necessarily talking about the difference in cost either; I'm told that it's not uncommon for them to simply refuse to cover any part of the cost if they don't approve of the treatment.
From a business point of view it makes a lot of sense as they are a profit-making company.