Posted on 01/07/2008 4:29:55 PM PST by shrinkermd
John Edwards has been bashing big health insurers in recent days with the story of a girl who died waiting for a liver transplant. But the details of the case suggest the Democratic presidential candidate may be oversimplifying the tale.
Nataline Sarkisyan had been battling leukemia for three years. Insurer Cigna Corp. rejected coverage for a liver transplant, then reversed its decision and said it would pay. The 17-year-old died before the operation could take place
...Nataline's case could provide fuel to both sides of the argument about whether insurance companies generally do a good job covering Americans. The day before Thanksgiving, she received a bone-marrow transplant from her brother. Soon after, her liver failed, and she went into a coma. Her doctors at the medical center of the University of California, Los Angeles, recommended a liver transplant, saying that patients in such situations would have a 65% chance of living another six months.
Cigna said both its own medical experts as well as an outside transplant surgeon and a cancer doctor with transplant expertise concluded there wasn't enough evidence that the procedure would be safe or effective. But after the denial got press coverage, the company reversed the decision on Dec. 20 "out of empathy for the family." Nataline died later the same day.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
As usual.
Her brother announced a lawsuit against Cigna even before her funeral. The sad fact is there are not enough livers to go around and I’m sure the decision was in the best interest of those who had already been waiting. Cigna had paid for a bone marrow transplant and she started shutting down afterwards. It would have been a waste of a needed liver for someone who stood a chance at living much longer than 6 months. Does anybody out there believe that Universal Healthcare would have done better by this girl?
Can anyone tell us if this procedure would have been funded by Canadian, Cuban, or UK socialized medicine?
I think it's pretty obvious that the idea the government would have gone to the lengths extended in the article to save her life is in doubt, especially with the examples every day from countries that do have 'universal health care.'
This is where the power of the consumer comes in to play - health care coverage can be selectable, rather than one size fits all. Something that unfortunately too few of the candidates right now for president, some even running as 'Republicans', are unable to comprehend.
Reminds me of Mickey Mantle. He got a new liver and then developed metastatic cancer after he got the immunosuppressants. The docs said it was a "waste" because it prevented someone else from getting the liver.
There would be if people were allowed to sell them. Why is everyone in the entire transplant process paid, except the donor (or donor's estate?)
Because it would create a black market. I don’t think you are allowed to buy an organ for transplant in this country. I think it’s different in Asia.
Just the opposite. Prohibition creates black markets. Legalization ends them.
“He also wants to cap insurance-company profits.”
OK Senator.
Right after we cap trial lawyer salaries
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.