Posted on 06/18/2009 10:27:47 AM PDT by steve-b
Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.
The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation's healthcare system.
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.
It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.
"No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact," said Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), a member of the committee. "There is no acceptable minimum to denying coverage after the fact."
The executives -- Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealth's Golden Rule Insurance Co.; Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health and Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., parent of Blue Cross of California -- were courteous and matter-of-fact in their testimony.
But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle....
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
the cold hard fact is that these insurance companies are just doing what the government will most likely do if we go to a one payer system. There instance of someone, especially the elder, not getting certain treatments will be the case in the name of controlling costs.
So you think a liar who says he does not smoke to obtain coverage should still be treated for his smoking-induced lung cancer?
I don’t think federal programs do that now, do they?
But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverageIs this problem a sign of a preexisting condition?
It is this kind of crap that helps push the cause for national socialist insurance coverage.
Gee. What a coincidence. This news breaks just in time for Congress to approve ObamaCare.
I read it. So every lie on the application was “unintentional”? Is that it? Why should they have to prove intent?
The companies are allowed by law to underwrite based on medical history on individual policies because it would bankrupt the companies to guarantee coverage to all.
“So you think a liar who says he does not smoke to obtain coverage should still be treated for his smoking-induced lung cancer?”
I see your point but that is probably the exception, the liar example, rather than the norm. Sooner or later most if not all people will have a catastrophic illness of some sort and insurance that give you the boot when you need it most is what is driving the country to look at a government option.
I don’t know what the solution is, but sooner or later business will stop providing healthcare coverage just like they did retirement and a system for all needs to be in place that can be depended on and affordable. I personally don’t care about the office visit coverage or most of the prescription coverage, but catastrophic care is a different story.
This is real easy. Pass a law saying they can’t cancel after the fact as long as the premiums are paid on time and coverage was purchased properly. Announce to the world you have revamped the healthcare industry and saved the lives of millions of Americans.
End of Healthcare reform (unless you want to throw in a little tort reform with it but with the Dems in charge the trial lawyers are writing the laws)
no, but you can bet they will as coverage is spread out to 300 million people.
Here are certain things that are destined to happen if we go to a single payer system.
More demand for health care will seen while less people decide to become doctors (would you really want to become a doctor with all the work and cost of becoming a doctor only to be limited to what you can make?).
Costs won’t be brought under control. HAs the government EVER brought costs of ANYTHING down?
Like insurance companies, decisions will be made about yoru health by non doctors or bureaucrats who know nothing about you but you will not have much recourse in appealing decisions like you have now. This will, with no doubt, lead to many people being denied certain treatments or long waits for treatments.
On a side note, Buttcrack told docs at the AMA (currently 25% of doc are members of the AMA, thus AMA does not speak for all doctors. It’s just the biggest organized group) that he was not going to address malpractice/tort reform. That right there tells you Obama has no interest in reigning in costs if he won’t curb one of the biggest problems in health care, that being frivolous lawsuits by doctors. And why Obama is such a liar is because under any single payer plan, he’ll have to curb awards in malpractice suits if he wants to reduce health costs. It will be interesting to see how med malpractice/PI attorneys respond to a single payer plan because it will wipe out their business.
All in all, a single payer system will only add fuel to the fire that is already burning in health care and lack of insurance. People will have the symbolic government coverage but care will end up suffering even more as it’s rationed. And while that’s happening, they’ll end up paying more taxes to cover the costs of the plan.
I get it... so you'd have the honest people subsidize those who lie on their applications?
I would go further. All coverage should not be at risk for a minor failure to disclose on an application. A failure to disclose a treatment for acne should not allow a carrier to avoid coverage for breast cancer.
The real problem with our system began in the 1970’s, when people began to expect to receive insurance and for that insurance to pay EVERYTHING.
Have the sniffles? Go see the doctor. Have a wart on your hand? Go see a dermatologist. And so on. And everything was “free” (included in insurance paid by the employer). Doctors no longer had to set rates based on what ordinary consumers could pay, and people no longer had to concern themselves with the costs attendant to constantly visiting the doctor.
Yes, it’s pretty sad when one party in a contractual relationship can dictate the terms of the agreement to that extent.
Years ago when I was getting raped repeatedly by different health insurers, I asked an attorney to evaluate the contract at the time I was having to switch to another insurer (which was very damn year). He told me not to bother. As I recall his opinion was something to the effect that the way it was written they could pretty much do whatever they wanted to do and it would not violate the contract. And he said it was darn difficult to even figure out.
“would you really want to become a doctor with all the work and cost of becoming a doctor only to be limited to what you can make?”
Well, doctor’s bills I have seen through my wife’s needs are not the issue compared to the corp side of medical care, read hospitals. Doctor’s should benefit from their work but quite frankly, the money in the system is artificially high right now because of the gov and insurance playing in the system. That entire sector of the economy is going to take a hit one way or the other. The one thing 0 is right about is that the current system cannot be sustained.
i don’t disagree but why are things spiraling out of control? IT’s because of a failure of the free market. it’s because of gov intervention that has, over time, created a false market for health care that is subsidized by other people and not by the end users.
“I read it. So every lie on the application was ‘unintentional’? Is that it? Why should they have to prove intent?”
Because usually, we require someone to prove an accusation before we act against the malefactor.
The article presents the case of a man whose health insurance policy was rescinded because he hadn't revealed some medical conditions that he'd had. His doctor had noted these conditions in his chart, but hadn't actually told the man about them. So, the individual lost his insurance for not reporting conditions of which he was unaware.
That's the sort of thing that will drive the public toward Obamacare.
sitetest
“i don’t disagree but why are things spiraling out of control? IT’s because of a failure of the free market. it’s because of gov intervention that has, over time, created a false market for health care that is subsidized by other people and not by the end users.”
BINGO!!! I don’t know what the solution is, but it is sure to ugly.
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.