Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Woman Slammed With $43,000 Hospital Bill (and she's 'insured')

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 05:18 PM
Original message
Woman Slammed With $43,000 Hospital Bill (and she's 'insured')
Edited on Tue Nov-27-07 05:19 PM by Breeze54
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/14707487/detail.html">Woman Slammed With $43,000 Hospital Bill

Insurance Considers Cancer Treatment Experimental

POSTED: 4:22 pm EST November 27, 2007


BOSTON --

For Helen Loulache the end of treatment for breast cancer marked the beginning of a new battle.

This wife and mother endured surgery and seven weeks of radiation only to get slammed with a $43,000 dollar bill. "I don't feel it's my fault," she said. "I had proper insurance. My coverage booklet says it includes 100 percent of radiation." But apparently not for the type of radiation she received at the Caritas Foxboro Center. A technique called IMRT costs twice as much as standard radiation.

"We do offer this treatment to many of our patients with good results, and that's why the decision was made for this patient," said Tim Arnold, of the Caritas Cancer Care Program.

But Loulache's out-of-state insurer, Excellus BlueCross BlueShield of Rochester, New York, denied the claim calling IMRT experimental for breast cancer. On appeal three independent oncologists found IMRT was not more beneficial than standard treatment and said the denial should be upheld.

"I'm of the mind the insurance company is responsible for this," said Caritas' Arnold. "The treatment has been around for almost 10 years."

In an e-mail, Jim Redmond, a regional vice president for Excellus, said he could not comment on a specific member's case. But he added, "Our contracts exclude coverage of experimental treatments because they are not proven through clinical trials and peer-reviewed medical literature to be safe or effective."

The president of the Massachusetts Medical Society tells Team 5 Investigates this case points to a major problem.

"There isn't a bright line between what constitutes research and what constitutes advanced care. We really need that," said Dr. Dale Magee. "We don't have the same oversight with procedures and techniques that we do with drugs and devices."

Health care advocates say this is not an isolated case. Many patients get stuck in the middle between hospitals and their insurance companies.

More.....


Those f*&king assholes!! :grr:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Time to lawyer up!
Edited on Tue Nov-27-07 05:20 PM by slackmaster
I've had to sue my own (car) insurance company before. I was successful.

Once she gets the right kind of mouthpiece speaking for her, they'll work something out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I'm not so sure (Sicko) doesn't agree either.
That really sucks that she's been sick, they didn't warn her and now this! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
105. It shouldn't have to come to that.
Why should she pay an attorney to keep from paying the bill? Either way, the consumer gets screwed.

I do realize the attorney would take it out of her winnings, but she'd still have to pay expenses along the way until a settlement is reached - if it is.

Ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #105
108. Usually insurance companies see the Light when they get a letter from a lawyer
They "realize" they have made "an error", and negotiate a settlement with the providers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. This is what John Edwards is talking about.This is the reason we need a fighter like Edwards in the
Edited on Tue Nov-27-07 05:24 PM by saracat
WH.We must end the Insurance Companies Reign of Terror.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. That's right. It's time to put an end to all the crap.
Pre-existing conditons, limits to treatment, higher costs passed on to the consumer.

Enough is enough! America has horrible health care, and we spend so much for it. It's time to let Edwards loose on this industry, among others! We need change in America, it's way overdue, and buying endorsements and taking lobbyist money isn't going to give us change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Amen Andy A! Love this quote of yours:
"We need change in America, it's way overdue, and buying endorsements and taking lobbyist money isn't going to give us change."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Then he should drop the Ins. Co.'s and go with single payer!
Like Kucinch's plan!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #6
101. John Edwards plan gets us there
He will offer a medicare modeled plan open to EVERYONE which will undercut all the insurance companies and drive them out of business.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. With what, more insurance?
Single Payer not for profit is the way to go.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #15
104. There would still be a need to control costs
Eliminating the profit motive would shift priorities, but there would still be disputed claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
106. And he did so much when he was in the Senate.
NOT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
107. Yep -- Edwards is our best hope (Yes, Kucinich would be good, but he's not going to be the nominee)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. If, after reading this article, there are any people still opposed
to universal, single-payer healthcare, they need a psychiatrist (sorry, not covered by your insurance).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abluelady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. But Don't You Realize
This isn't going to happen to "them." They are going to be killed by a terrorist bomb. Let's get our priorities straight.:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. No, that's an argument for better disclosure
The single-payer universal systems in the UK and Canada don't generally pay for procedures that are considered "experimental" either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. No, insurance Co.'s are using the 'experimental' thing to NOT PAY!
Didn't you see Sicko yet? If not, watch it. It's out on DVD now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. My initial response stands
The victim needs to lawyer up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
47. Nor does Medicare, Medicaid, VA, IHS, etc
They all have restrictions. We have non-profit insurance and non-profit clinics and hospitals. I don't see where people get the idea that changing the way we pay is going to magically extend expensive services. Maybe if we took the profit out altogether, from the hospital to the doctor to the equipment to the manufacturer, but that would be government run health care which the single payer folks guarantee we won't have. I don't think there is an easy answer to this problem. I also think we're lucky to get service and be alive, even if it means debt forever. Other people don't get that option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. Ding ding ding! "Maybe if we took the profit out altogether"
Exactly!!! Now you're cooking with gas! ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. Government run health care
Is that what you're proposing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. You betcha! Single payer health care for all!
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #59
65. single payer keeps profit
It keeps profit for hospitals, clinics, doctors, psychiatrists, pharmaceuticals, pharmacies, medical equipment, labs, and everybody else involved in health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #65
69. I want what France and England and Canada have!
I want it NOW!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. You don't want anything
You're just babbling for the sake of babbling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #73
80. I learned babbling from the best babblers!! --- YOU!!!
:P

You're really. really good at it! :D


:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
35. Excellus is non-profit
https://www.excellusbcbs.com/wps/portal/xl/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLNzSKN_R3BcmZxXvEBxjpR6KKOcZbuqCLecabO3pgCpo4ByAJ-nrk56bqB-l76wfoF-SGhoZGlDsCAMEAHWs!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82X0lfM0lO

And there is no guarantee a government program would pay for "experimental" treatment either. Medicare is refusing to pay for more than 6 months of hospice care. There will be limits on single payer coverage too.

People need all the facts when they choose what to do with health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. A number of the Blue Cross-Blue Shield companies are NIO...
....and non-profit, as is this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #35
83. Being "non-profit" doesn't mean people don't make a profit
It means they have surplus restrictions and can't go over without being taxed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #83
84. I'll try this again.
Maybe you'll be able to answer it since Breeze didn't even bother to try.

Who do you think owns the NIO, not-for-profit insurance companies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. Not for profit? - Excellus Raises Insurance Premiums
http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=fabee1eb-833a-4459-a6bb-38663d898958">Excellus Raises Insurance Premiums

Last Update: 11/21

(Rochester, N.Y.) --

Customers of Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield should brace themselves for a rate increase.

On average, health plans will rise 8.3 percent for 2008. That’s more than two percentage points
higher than the increase in 2007.

Excellus has defended the increase saying it is caused by new drugs and technology, as well as,
rising costs for health care nationally.

Related Story: http://www.13wham.com/content/localbusiness/story.aspx?content_id=ad6b37b5-e554-4a20-9bdc-d81025321256">Blues '08 Rate Hikes to Average 8.3 Percent

Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield, Rochester Region said that 2008 rate hikes in its community-rated
and experience-rated products would average 8.3 percent. Increases for groups in community-rated plans—
a shrinking category but one into which most small businesses fall—would average 12.8 percent, the Blues said.

-----------------

Blue Profiler

http://home.healthleaders-interstudy.com/index.php?p=blue-profiler

The Most Comprehensive Analysis of the Non-Profit Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans

The top 15 non-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield plans own one third of the commercial
market equating to about 50 million lives.

However, because they enjoy less restrictive disclosure guidelines, detailed
information on the non-profit Blue plans has been difficult to obtain.


Until now...

HealthLeaders-InterStudy now offers the most comprehensive analysis of the non-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield
plans with a report series called Blue Profiler. Each report covers an individual non-profit Blue plan and
includes valuable analysis that will allow companies to more effectively partner with these dominant organizations.


-------------

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #85
94. You're right, of course.
They should be lowering premiums as the cost of the things that they pay for rises. That makes a whole lot of sensse.

Who do you think owns the NIO, non-profit Blues?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #83
86. No, it means there's no profit
And it means the cost of medical care is expensive because hospitals, clinics, doctors, labs, pharmacies, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, etc., ARE for profit. And expensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
45. Its a difficult fight to cover cancer treatment
its higher cost care than most kinds of health care, so policymakers and elected officials opt for "incremental" health care reform, leaving cancer coverage for the last.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
10. Three words: Universal Single Payer n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
11. Sadly, I'm not surprised
there's a whole host of cancer treatments that are labeled "experimental."

If you need something nontradtional or new, or an oncologist five states away, your ins co likely won't pay for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. But the treatment she got was 10 yrs. old!!
It's just an excuse by the Ins. Co. not to pay! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Doesn't matter
If it is statistically successful, ins cos will call a treatment "experimental" for as long as they can get away with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Umm...isn't that what I said?
Edited on Tue Nov-27-07 06:19 PM by Breeze54
That they're lying? :shrug:

And you had said that if it was less than five yrs. old. (the treatment)

:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
14. Back in 1980 my wife got stuck with a $60,000 bill by her insurance
company. They OK'd the surgery, then after the surgery, they changed their mind and stuck her with the bill. To add insult to injury, the hospital removed her pituitary gland, and left the pituitary tumor. When our lawyer started asking questions, her medical records disappeared. Of course they kept on billing us. Our threat to go public and us stating that they have no proof of the surgery got the charges deferred. They can't prove she had the surgery without implicating themselves in destroying/hiding her medical records. The records were nearly two inches thick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. That's when a lot of this BS started!
I'm sorry you went through that but sounds like you had a clever lawyer! :)

Good for you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. It wasn't the lawyer that did the heavy lifting. It was my wife. She's
the one that made the hospital see the error of their ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
16. And the "experimental" treatment worked? Insurance should pay up.
I hate insurance companies like this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. That would be ALL Ins. Co.'s!
Aren't they all like this now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. Yes, everyone I know has had disputes like this though not as large
The system is broken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. The 'system' isn't broken. ~~ It's corrupt!
This is about greed, NOT a broken system!

The system works just fine for the insurance companies!

They're getting richer by denying treatments to people and letting them die!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. You have to fight to get them to pay, but they do pay
I encourage people to be aggressive with them until we come up with a real fix.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. They shouldn't have to fight them to begin with!
I'm not saying not to get a lawyer but they cost money too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #33
98. I totally agree you shouldn't have to fight
Where I think we diverge in opinion is that I do not see implementation of a single-payer universal system as a guaranteed cure for this particular kind of problem. The only real difference would be the absence of the profit incentive that motivates private carriers to push the limits as far as they do. Under a government-managed system there still must be an incentive to control costs and not pay out on frivolous claims. (At least there damn well better be, otherwise everyone will get screwed as the managers end up rationing care that is really needed.)

There will certainly still be disputes as to whether or not a particular procedure is eligible for payment in a given case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KatyaR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. There's a woman I work with whose 18-YO daughter is dying of cancer.
The daughter is rallying the state legislature to pass a law requiring insurance companies to cover experimental treatment/clinical trials.

This family, that HAS insurance, was last year cleaning out pickle jars to put in local convenience stores to try and raise the almost $100,000 for her treatment. She has been sick for 4 years, and her family will unfortunately be saddled with paying her medical bills for many, many years after she's gone.

It's a sick, sick world we live in that would deny ANY type of care to a child.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #23
34. Experimental treatments should be free, somehow. The knowledge gained from
the "experiment", whether the patient lives or dies, ends up benefitting others. They simply shouldn't cost thepatient if they are in need of a treatment of last resort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
42. What kind of experimental treatments?
Most clinical trials used to be covered by insurance, but some have begun whittling away at that coverage, too. As always, patients get stuck in the middle between insurance companies and the company who is conducting the clinical trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. In what universe?
I've worked in the medical insurance industry for 35 years and I have never seen a policy that covers experimental treatments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. They call it 'experimental' because they don't want to pay!!
Edited on Tue Nov-27-07 09:38 PM by Breeze54
PERIOD!!

All the rest of their greedy rhetoric is just that! Rhetoric! :grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Where is the "greed" motive...
....for a not-for-profit organization to deny coverage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. BC BS is NOT a non-profit!
Give me a break. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. Try again.
Edited on Tue Nov-27-07 09:49 PM by WillowTree
You really need to check your facts before you make yourself look foolish.

Blue Cross-Blue Shield is a different company in every state where they operate. Quite a few, including the one in this case, are, indeed, NIO and non-profit. Other examples are the BC-BS carriers in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Illinois. Check it out.

In other states, Blue Cross is for profit. Most of the for profit BC-BS operations are owned by WellPoint, which is also the parent company of UniCare, the very worst of the worst. But since the Blue Cross charter does not allow any one BC-BS operation to cross state lines, you can't make such blanket statements about them.

Unless your goal is to make yourself look uninformed, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #55
62. See post # 41 and if you think Non-Profit means 'charity' and good doobies;
think again! Just look up 'Red Cross fraud' and United Way.

One guy running UW was in the mafia, for cripes sake!

Senate Announces Witness List for Hearing on Charity Abuses
http://www.philanthropy.com/free/update/2004/06/2004061601.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. No one said anything about charity.
Edited on Tue Nov-27-07 10:14 PM by WillowTree
Only that your adamant assertion that Blue Cross is NOT non-profit is ill-informed.

Just out of idle curiosity, who do you think owns the NIO Blue Cross companies?

And by the way, I don't need to check out #41. I know what it says. I wrote it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #64
71. Post # 58... my mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. Clinical trials
Many insurance companies to cover the cost of care related to participating in a clinical trial. Medicare and medicaid also provide coverage for routine care related to clinical trials.

After reading the linked article and doing a little checking on Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy - its accepted by the NCI for use in clinical trials for treatment of certain types of tumors, breast included. Its been approved, but it looks as though the insurance company in this case is splitting hairs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. " it looks as though the insurance company in this case is splitting hairs."
What else is new? :shrug:

Thanks for researching further. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tyedyeto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #44
61. According to the OP... the radiation therapy has been used for other patients for
10 years!

When is it no longer considered experimental?

When the insurance companies 'decide' it's not. I'll bet ya it'll be a denied claim and it will be kept on the experiment blockfor many more years so they don't have to pay one damn dime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
22. Universal Health for all is are only hope
otherwise we all are in the same boat as this woman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
25. What's with this 'experimental' shit?
If YOUR OWN DOCTOR recommends it, than HOW is it EXPERIMENTAL?

And even if it is, who the fuck are insurance companies to DENY it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Decisions by doctors get overridden by accountants
But ultimately the lawyers prevail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. The decisions get over ridden by doctors and nurses!
Edited on Tue Nov-27-07 07:41 PM by Breeze54
That's what they're paid to do! Deny, deny, deny! Save the company money! Deny!

HMO Whisteblower Dr. Linda Peeno on the Subordination of Healthcare to a For-Profit System

VIDEO of TESTIMONY

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/21/1444235

A decade ago Dr. Linda Peeno made headlines when she told Congress about her work as a medical reviewer for the giant HMO Humana, where she says she denied a man life-saving medical care in order to boost company profits. She would go
on to become one of the country's best known whistleblowers about HMOs and the healthcare industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. Oh yes, I remember her
One of the most moving parts of Sicko.

But she was a doctor working for the insurnace company, wasn't she?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #38
49. Yes, and then became a whistle blower on the Ins. Co.'s.
What's really abusive is all the research the Ins. Co.'s and big Pharma
claim to be doing is really done by the NHI and WE pay for it!!

Then the Ins. Co.'s claim it's 'experimental after TEN f*&king years? BS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judaspriestess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
27. a dear friend of mine had to file bankruptcy AFTER his wife died
of cancer(like that is not tragic enough) because the insurance company dropped her and he was left with 200K in medical bills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
30. WTF can one say to this
...except VOTE FOR KUCINICH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
36. Yep, this is what they do to you after you pay and pay and pay.
Insurance is a scam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
37. Insurance companies are not in the business of paying out, they are in the business of collecting.
Deny, Deny, Deny! It's all a huge scam! The less they pay out, the more profit for the HMOs/CEOs and shareholders. Government regulation/oversight would be a huge step in the right direction,imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. The insurer in this example is non-profit.
Just for the record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Well that is sad and makes a case for affordable heath care. Other countries do it, why can't we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #41
58. A non-profit insurer is better than a for profit one, but they're still stingy about paying claims
and their executives aren't starving. Without close oversite they can be as crooked as the for profit outfits. Several years ago the state Attorney General went after one of the nonprofit outfits in Minnesota when an audit by his office found they were spending a ton of money on perks for their executives and insurance agencies (gold golf tees sticks in my mind).

Besides Kucinich, is any Democratic candidate offering a plan that would prevent someone getting hit with a $43,000 bill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #58
77. Maybe they just wouldn't get authorization
It would be classified experimental and be rejected before it was ever delivered. Like other federal health programs. You wouldn't even know the option existed because you would never know the upper 1% who could afford to pay for the experimental treatment out of pocket. Single payer would not be a panacea to all these problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
40. Sad, but true - check your insurance first
before you make your decisions about cancer treatment. Ask your doctor to provide you with the scientific evidence showing improved benefit of experimental treatment over standard therapy. If the evidence shows significant benefit over standard therapy, choose it, but also ask your doctor to help you fight the insurance company if they refuse to pay.

More often, this is a problem during breast reconstruction surgery. Many insurance companies refuse to cover reconstruction if patients wait more than a year after diagnosis, calling it "cosmetic surgery". That's incredibly unfair since its often better for the patient's health and recovery to wait.

Expect to see more and more of these practices, especially if our leaders make the mistake of using private health insurance as the basis for universal care. As costs rise, they'll begin to cut coverage.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
53. The assholes are the doctors and hospital that didn't make sure it was covered

or they just didn't care, figured they'd take the woman's house or whatever she has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. No, it's the greedy ins. Co's! The Dr's took care of her and maybe saved her life.
The insurance company should pay! They're just being greedy, imho!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #53
60. Damn greedy doctors!
:rofl: Maybe they just wanted the best care for their patient and didn't know that the greedy insurance company would elect not too pay. Ya think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. because hospitals don't get approval of payment from insurance companies before
Edited on Tue Nov-27-07 10:08 PM by RGBolen
performing procedures. Right. They knew what they were doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #63
70. Why blame the doctors or the hospitals? I would think that either would rather have the insurance
companies pay rather than having to collect from patients who are covered and then denied. I would think that for the either the doctors or hospitals, they would find it easier. Just my opinion. Especially in this economy when they know full well the price of health care and that a lot of Americans are strapped for cash. And we all know that insurance companies are greedy SOBs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurking Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #63
102. I don't think I have had a single
solitary procedure (and I have had many) that didn't need pre-approval from the insurance company.

This story is very strange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #53
66. Do you own an insurance company?
You sure seem to have a serious problem finding any fault with an insurance company under any circumstance. The doctor and hospital expended $40,000 of service with no regard to the collection of it. They are not the assholes in this situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. If they have no regard to the collection of it why does the woman have a bill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #67
74. The woman has the service
with no regard to the collection of the bill, which she wouldn't get with an insurance company. Perhaps that's why doctors don't call first, they want to save lives and worry about the money later.

Again, what is your connection to the insurance industry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #53
68. They'll do it, too.
I consulted for a physician's billing service awhile back. They're ruthless in their collection efforts.

Not that they don't deserve to be paid. I'm just sayin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #53
72. It's not their job to know every single policy for every one of their patients.
It says that in the fine print on the paperwork you sign for treatment.

The doctor goes with the best treatment for the patient. Yes, doctors often spend a lot of time on the phone arguing with the insurance companies (and her doctors will most likely be involved in this case as pissed off as they sound in the article snippet), but that doesn't mean that it's their job to know what will and won't get covered. That's, unfortunately, the patient's job.

The best way for them to fight this is to get the evidence on their side, since the insurance company is arguing that the evidence-based medicine (EBM) standard hasn't been met. That's usually a bullshit argument, and it's often easy to fit with a serious journal search and a top-notch doctor in your corner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. Nonsense.
There isn't an oncology practice anywhere that doesn't have staff in their offices whose sole responsibilities are to verify and pre-certify insurance benefits before treatment is rendered. If for no other reason than because most cancer treatments are very costly and they want to be sure they'll get paid. Someone dropped the ball on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. Or the insurance company withdrew their pre-approval.
They do that from time to time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. It's possible.
But I doubt it. They confirm those certifications in writing and generally they'll eat it when they blow a pre-cert rather than jeopardize their contracts with the doctors and hospitals involved. They know they stand to lose more than they gain when that happens. But it could be.

One way or another, someone dropped the ball on this case big time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #78
97. One of Michigan's big insurers is known for doing that.
Or, better yet, they just never pay. They say they will, so doctors and and hospitals end up with huge accounts receivables that are just empty numbers. They don't get dropped, though, because they're one of the biggest insurers. One of the hospitals did threaten to drop them, and they finally paid their bill--three years' worth they'd let languish, but most doctors don't have that kind of pull.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
79. We have a 3rd World health care delivery system.Those who can't afford it can go die in an alley,but
...those who CAN afford it get the best in the world.

The really cruel part is that our for-profit system promises the best to everyone, then makes it contingent on having a job and having just the right kind of coverage.

We make individuals and their families pay for cancer treatments by holding bake sales and other forms of public begging.

In other Third World nations at least people who are excluded know it's a given, and I think they also know it's not their fault.

Hekate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Digit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
81. It is my understanding that hospital bills are difficult to understand
There was a piece on this on 20/20 years ago and the majority of bills are difficult to follow and in many cases were incorrect.

This is something that also should be corrected. We don't really know what we are paying for.

I CAN say that when my mother was in the hospital dying, a neurologist stuck his head in the door and asked us how she was doing and there was a bill to Medicare for a "visit" even though he was not involved in her care. He did not even go to her bedside, nor was she conscious to speak with him. A mere peak in the door. Talk about a rip off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #81
82. Insurance bills are difficult to stomach!
"hospital bills are difficult to understand"

Yeah, especially when people are ripped off regularly by the Doctors and the insurance companies!

They're in it together for PROFIT!!!! :grr:

So sorry about your mother. :(

:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:29 AM
Response to Original message
87. I'd like to play Devil's Advocate here for a sec
This case is a good example of a huge problem in healthcare.

Who decides what is medically necessary? If there is no scientific evidence that a procedure (which costs twice as much!) is any more effective then why should the insurance company pay? What about a case where a procedure is say 5% more effective but costs 300% more? Should it get covered?

I don't know the specifics of this case. I know it's not all that atypical though.

BTW, Universal (Single Payer) Healthcare won't 'solve' this particular problem either. The government isn't going to just shell out for any procedure a doctor wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. The supposed 'experimental' treatment is TEN YEARS OLD!!!!
And approved by the NHI/NHO (?) (National Health Organization)

What/Who gives the right to these greedy insurance companies

to determine what is real and/or experimental treatment?

GREED!

$$$$$$$$$$ IS their bottom line!! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #88
89. I'm talking more about this in a general sense
The fact that the treatment has been around for a while may be important, but it still may be that the treatment is no more effective than the cheaper alternative. I don't know.

Again though, this same issue will come up with Gov't sponsored healthcare. This is not just an 'evil insurance company' thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #89
90. Yes it is an 'evil Ins.' thing!
It's more typical than not that they are rejecting their responsibility to pay!!

That IS evil and greedy!!!

Perhaps you've been blinded by the last seven years of evil and can't see it? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #90
91. The insurance company in question may or may not be in the wrong
I don't know. What I'm trying to say is that this sort of situation is very very common but one which directly goes to the heart of why health care is so expensive. Additionally, this is an issue that will be around regardless of whether we have insurance companies or the government paying for care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #91
92. No, it will stop when the 'for profit' is taken out of the equation!
They are in the wrong and they need to be put in check asap!

They're screwing the American taxpayers and it has to stop... NOW!

This behavior, as exampled above, is outrageous! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #92
93. So you believe procedures won't be denied under single payer?
It happens all the time,already. Medicare doesn't cover everything.

Again, this insurance company may be in the wrong. My point is more general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #93
99. Yes, my mom fights with Medicare all the time
Her latest adventure is that they stopped paying for a form of inhaled asthma medicine that works well for her, in favor of a less expensive one that does NOT work for her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #92
100. Replacing profit motive with a need to control how public funds are used might indeed make it better
But there will still be disputes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #87
103. one thing is for sure, the PATIENT doesnt know what is medically acceptable
How the hell does the patient know the difference between procedures and treatments? But the patient gets stuck with the bill anyways.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
95. That place is around the corner from my work!
We need socialized medicine and we need it yesterday!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Highway61 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
96.  Cheney
has a medical team with him 24-7, that WE all pay for!!
Yet, this morning on the "news" I hear about the pepper spray on Miss Puerto Rico's fucking dress while this women's story should have been front and center. I can't stand it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
109. typical Bluecross antics
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 09th 2024, 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC