It’s only illegal if you’re intentionally doing it to avoid reporting

They are intentionally doing it because of mostly imagined consequences of having the transactions be reported. And committing a felony as a consequence.

This is great to see. Some feedback: I entered the exact name of a doctor I knew would be in the database, formatted as "firstName lastName". The result was buried under 20 other less relevant matches. I had to search as "lastName, firstName", for it to come back as the first result.

I noticed when zooming in on the map, the light blue color is almost identical to what the map shows as lakes/ponds/water etc.

Thank you. I'll fix this. I'm working out dark mode for the map, so I'll do it along with that when I figure it out.

Thank you. I'll fix asap. The data source only gives me the names as complete names in "last, first middle" format, and I didn't want to take risk parsing them since there are inconsistencies, but I'll work it out. For now, I've clarified the format in the placeholder of that field.

Yea, a more exact search that can parse out first name and last name would be the way. If I search for JOHN SMITH, and there are actually none in the database, I think I'd rather just see no results than 50 different Johns, none with last name Smith.

This is the epitome of bad science journalism. The study says "X is correlated with Y", while the article says "X increases risk of Y".

Moderators, can you change this to the actual source study[1] and update the title?

[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/28094...

One of those days, I need to make a "Tell HN" thread that requests adding a new submission rule to allow only direct links to published research, and never any of this journalistic regurgitation nonsense. The most infuriating thing is that often those garbage articles don't even link to the research, so it takes time to find it!

Agreed. The HN Guidelines[1] already say "Please submit the original source" but I guess it doesn't get enforced very well.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The link no longer works. Archived copy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230908050506/https://lichess.o...

It works for me.

> they proactively sent a doctor out a few times for housecalls

The article talks about these housecalls:

"The home health visits are designed to look for illnesses or codings that can increase risk scores. They very much are not looking for conditions that require medical intervention. This “free home health visit” scam is so profitable that an entire industry has sprung up of companies that send nurses out on behalf of the insurance companies."

If I look at it post-hoc and cynically, maybe their motivation was to get him off the "insurance" company's books (electing hospice kicks you back onto vanilla Medicare). But it was objectively needed and they spent time to do the job, on a major holiday even.

I've no idea what the dynamic would have looked like if they came to different conclusions than me and we were at odds, but all I can say is that the quality of care always heavily depends on having an advocate.