BWE, I'm not following your cost issues at all. Isn't that the case with any company? A car company increases efficiency, so it can lower costs and better compete. Well, they have no money other than what their customers give them. What's the difference?
I got the impression the ins co was doing this to try to lower long term costs - not to create more services that they are charging for? Are you saying they are "offering" this service to companies, and increasing their ins charges? That's not how I read it. The car equivalent would be offering expensive options, and trying to get you to buy up. They do that, but it is different from lowering costs with eff improvements.
Again, I cannot *know* that this practice is beneficial overall. But in general, business don't pursue something unless they at least have something to go on that makes it appear attractive. Of course, companies (and people) make mistakes and use bad judgment, happens all the time. This might be one of them, but as I said, I can't see any reason to dismiss it out of hand.
I agree that it could very well be the case that this causes an increased burden on the doctors, and the ins companies don't have to pay that. In the long run, the customers will, so it might be counter-productive overall. These things happen all the time, in every business. All you can do is push back through whatever means you have. The AMA? The company buying the ins?
Something I've never understood - it is mostly big companies paying for health insurance. So, why don't they get together more to standardize practices and work to lower costs? Just like Rich says, if they have ten different rules, that doesn't help. And if monitoring a patient's medicine usage is a benefit, it should be a benefit for all and standardized.
-ERD50