Posted on 12/14/2013 5:38:43 AM PST by reaganaut1
A coalition of 31 HIV/AIDS organizations is urging the Obama administration to investigate whether some health insurers are trying to discourage HIV-infected patients from enrolling in new policies being sold under the health-care law, a move the groups say could be illegal.
The Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination against people who are sick; insurers can't deny them coverage or charge them more than healthier peers.
But in a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius last week, the coalition said it had noticed "a number of disturbing trends" in plans on the insurance exchanges, including plans that don't cover all available HIV drugs and what it termed "egregious cost-sharing designs."
What constitutes discrimination under the health law isn't clear, legal experts say, because the administration has yet to issue guidance.
Experts including the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute are studying the issue. "You are not supposed to design policies that discriminate, but what does it mean for a plan to be discriminatory? We don't know that yet," said Kevin Lucia, a research professor at the institute.
Among examples the HIV/AIDS coalition cited:
Aetna Inc. requires patients to pay 50% of the cost, after a drug deductible, for most HIV drugs in Florida. In Florida and some other states, Cigna Corp. and Aetna's separate CoventryOne put all HIV drugs—including generics—in a special category, requiring patients to pay 40% to 50% of their cost. That can be thousands of dollars a month.
Humana Inc. 's posted list of covered drugs in Florida and Alabama lists only six HIV drugs; other drugs are on a separate specialty list that shoppers might not know to check, the group says. All require patients to pay 50% of the cost, after a separate drug deductible.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
"Everyone understands that is this country, HIV/AIDS is primarily transmitted via men having sex with men. The highest rate of new infections are among homosexual males between the ages of 18 and 34. See CDC. Obama needed the homosexual vote, so he promised homosexuals they could not be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. As the article states, only 17% of HIV/AIDS patients have private health insurance. If the young and healthy do not sign up for Obamacare, who else will offset the drug costs HIV/AIDS patients need? Where is the compassion of the young, healthy Obama voters, who refuse to sign up for Obamacare to help pay for the sickest amongst us? Perhaps hey realize that socialism is costly to them and therefore not a good idea. Socialism is great until the government comes after your money."
” Where is the compassion of the young, healthy Obama voters, who refuse to sign up for Obamacare to help pay for the sickest amongst us? “
Cry me a river.
The problem is that there are only 20,000 pages of regulations in the Obamacare plan.
We need more regulations. /s/
People would have an incentive to take care of themselves, and insurers would cover rare and catastrophic illnesses.
The same holds true for homosexuals.
HIV has been a huge problem. There used to be a number of what I think of as academic-related professional organizations that offered group policies to members, most of whom were self-employed (such as translators). This was actually the only reason for joining the organizations. The policies were basically major medical, but they were affordable and they protected you from catastrophic events.
However, these professions attracted a lot of men who were unfortunately in the HIV high-risk group, and the cost of paying for those drugs went even beyond “catastrophic” and resulted in the refusal of the insurers to offer these group policies.
Gay men seem to be going about blithely getting HIV, confident that someone else will pay for their treatment, no matter how many other people suffer.
Treatment of AIDS patients is a significant part of the reason health care and health care insurance is so expensive.
Other reasons include greed on the part of all involved: patients, doctors, hospitals, medical equipment companies, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies.
Greed.
(I’m sure I’m failing to mention some other factors.)
Smokers are penalized to the max for the unforgivable sin of smoking. The HIV patients should have to pay for their dangerous lifestyle as well.
Everyone else’s meds are skyrocketing. Let the DINKS (Dual Income, No Kids) antibreeder gaystapo pay their fair share.
The obese, alcohol impaired, tobacco addicted, et al are being told that they made lifestyle choices and now must pay the piper.
So too the lavender mafia needs to cough up.
Cancer patients, regardless of the cause of illness, will be told to “take the pain pill” if they are deemed to be of no furthe tax base use to Socialists.
But there are no “death panels” even though Bill Gates (the Smartest Man In Washington) says they are necessary.
True
Compounded by the fact that the "guaranteed issue" mandate forces insurers to cover their precious "prexisting condition" after they go out and contract every terminal STD in the book.
Other reasons include greed on the part of all involved: patients, doctors, hospitals, medical equipment companies, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies.
False
The insurers make between 3 and 4% profit. Just because a lot of money flows through their hands doesn't mean they manage to stuff their pockets.
The doctors have huge bills resulting from massive college loans and other expenses, they live through hardship during the opening years of their career. Doctors save lives and relieve suffering on a daily basis and deserve to be highly paid professionals. If they are not, they deserve to be sued and removed from the profession.
To demonize the docs as greedy undeserving bastards is just...RAT.
Hospitals, on the other hand, mostly non-profits, are a different matter, and that begs the question:
Are they a private or public institution?
The nonprofits are not only beholden to the government for funding, they are also helpless puppets dangling from the infinite number of strings attached to that funding.
The balancing act of providing "free healthcare" to medical welfare and other deadbeat patients, while jacking up the charges to cash patients and insurance companies is asinine. This practice, called "Cost shifting" is a major item in "healthcare reform" that needs to be addressed, but is going untouched.
Cost-shifting should be banned!
Greed...(I’m sure I’m failing to mention some other factors.)
Boy I'll say.
The "greed" you refer to is the socialists that put all of the above in place. Implementing their "Holy Sacrament" of free healthcare as a right and using your money (at least twice) to buy the votes of the dependent class.
The Greed belongs to the RATs!
If the private insurers and private providers were allowed to operate in a free and open fashion, letting patients "shop" for the best deal on any given procedure (consumer driven healthcare) without the unGodly complications of government programs and regulations...we could be getting back to having the best healthcare system in the world, and unwinding decades of "healthcare inflation".
What a surprise! Managing risk was what made insurance affordable for most people. Now managing risk is illegal. The result: prices skyrocket for everyone.
>> This isn't just about HIV positive patients. All patients are going to be paying a lot under the ACA plans because it deliberately includes those with chronic 'pre-existing conditions" in an otherwise healthy pool of applicants.
I agree. Smokers as a group don’t have the financial power that the other group has.
Return on Equity is a better measure. Insurance companies generate a much higher ROE.
Jumping to accuse me of being a RAT is juvenile.
Your arguments are unconvincing in any area.
Health insurers have no equity other than their facilities and their reserves. They must pay about 75-80% of each premium dollar in claims.
Jumping to accuse me of being a RAT is juvenile.
I didn't. But those are progressive talking points.
Your arguments are unconvincing in any area.
I don't care if you're convinced or not, my arguments are not opinion but fact.
But SanFranNan told us that the new ACA policies were much better than the existing sub-standard ones.
She didn’t lie did she? /S
“The highest rate of new infections are among homosexual males between the ages of 18 and 34”
Hey, if insurance buyers are required to cover the cost of pregnancy and abortion, why not the cost of HIV? They are ALL conditions resulting from a behavior choice.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
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.