UPDATE:
Insurance company approves liver transplant after first denying $800K surgery, family says
And then they have the audacity to be surprised when Luigi walks in....
this one can be rough, and very quick for some people.
Almost three decades ago, my son was diagnosed with WPW and needed either open-heart surgery or a new procedure called “catheter oblation”. The open-heart surgery back then was a 6-week recovery time whereas the new procedure threaded the probes through the femoral artery and into the heart to oblate the false path. Recovery was a couple of days. Although experimental, we opted for the oblation. The expected cost was $50,000, but a fraction of the open heart option. Blue Cross-Blue Shield denied the request stating that it was “experimental”. I told this story to very good friend who said: “Do the surgery. I’ll pay for it.”
Long story short: My son was the first non-adult to have the surgery which was a success. Three weeks before the surgery, BCBS said they would honor the claim. They are not always on the bad side of the story.
He should have been taking Vitamine D, Ivermectin and Menbenazole with his chemo and he probably would not need the transplant.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043661820315152
There's your answer.
It’s a tough business but it’s insurance not an open healthcare ticket. People don’t like to hear this but insurance is a contract. The insurance sets premiums based on the terms of the contract. And those terms must be enforced or costs will exceed premiums. But the vast majority believe some one else should pay for their health care no matter their personal choices or their medical condition.
Does anyone on this forum believe their are circumstances were the insurance company should not cover a treatment?
No insurance company that I know performs surgeries.