Kaiser rejects costly treatment for sick children

sacbee.com ^ | Saturday, June 8, 2002 | By Cynthia Hubert -- Bee Staff Writer

[let freedom sing]

The HMO's experts say it shouldn't pay for what it calls risky, unproven procedure. An Amador County couple whose three youngsters suffer from a fatal genetic disorder have lost the first round of their battle to obtain a costly treatment that could save two of the children.

[let freedom sing]

Two-year-old Tommy Bennett plays with his sister, Ciara. All three Bennett children have been diagnosed with a rare and fatal illness.

Sacramento Bee/Anne Chadwick Williams

[let freedom sing]

I'm breaking for the day-- talk amongst yourselves.

[goldstategop]

My heart breaks for these people and I wish money were no object. I would like to do everything possible to save their children if there where even the slightest possibility they could be cured. I think the basis for Kaiser Permanente's decision should never be money. The decision should be based on the medical evidence and the only determination that should be made is: does this experimental procedure have benefits that outweigh the potential risks involved and will proceeding ahead with it save the children's lives, that is will it either cure them of their condition or bring about a significant improvement in the quality of their lives in the event it doesn't? The way I see it is every human life is precious and where we can save one we should. We should never allow someone to die because the money wasn't available to pay for an operation to save them. So the real question is did Kaiser reject the treatment for the legitimate medical criteria I mentioned or did they reject it to protect their bottom line? I truly hope its the former for its a heartbreak to have to watch your children die wondering for the rest of your lives if you could have done something. That is why my heart goes out to every one involved, especially the parents and their lovely children.

[KirklandJunction]

If Kaiser, or any other insurance plan, spends whatever money it takes for the worst cases, there will be no money left over for the next "normal" problem.

That's not fair, but neither is life. Sooner or later, life ends.

And there isn't an insurance plan that can prevent it. Not even for Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Ted Turner or them all combined.

Sad, but true.

[Pushi]

I am probably more conservative than the next guy. I don't think healthcare companies should be saddled with experimental procedures. This and cases like: a person having to go into constant care for say a head injury, some mental disorders, the old polio cases where a person had to be in an iron lung, servere burn cases involving extended intensive care and reconstructive surgery, etc., etc. should be handled by a state-supervised catastrophy pool. It could be financed by a small premium collected with the conventional medical premium and put in a state pool. No family can handle things like this and health care providers cannot afford them and charge reasonable premiums. I am not for socialized medicine, but I can go along with the state supplementing the catastrophy pool. By state, I mean state and not the federal government.

[sinkspur]

The way I see it is every human life is precious and where we can save one we should. We should never allow someone to die because the money wasn't available to pay for an operation to save them.

Who is "we"? Someone, somewhere has to pay for these operations. And, like it or not, financial considerations are part of the equation. If they cost $20,000 versus $600, 000, is there any question that the operations would have already been performed?

The Catholic Church puts it in terms of "ordinary" and "extraordinary" means of saving human life. Extraordinary means just exactly what we think it means: something over and above that afforded to the vast majority of patients with a similar affliction. And extraordinary means are, morally,never required.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

We should never allow someone to die because the money wasn't available to pay for an operation to save them

Does money grow on trees? Is it being horded by Scrooge McDuck? Or, is money equivalent to labor? Most rational people see the latter. Who's time do you wish to sacrifice? I suggest you and like minded people generous with other's time pony up and sacrifice your time. I for one would like a break from insurance and tax hikes levied by others. By time the tax man and the insurance providers have taken their cut, there is nothing left but debt. And, I am one of the more fortunate ones. I for one am tired of sacrifice.

[Scully]

"We have tremendous sympathy for this family," Hausman said. "The panel's decision was not a business decision. It was based on what these specialists believe to be in the best interests of the children."

Kaiser can color this anyway they like, but it was still a business decision. The above statement is evidence that the panel decided death to be in the best interests of the children.

[KirklandJunction]

.......'course if the friggin' government would butt out, make medical expenses tax-free, tax-free compound interest, a helluva' lot of these problems would go away and we wouldn't need fed insurance wonks, medicare............oh, isn't it clear now?

[concerned about politics]

I think they should pay for stuff like this.
Put this before the self inflicted illnesses that are costing them Billions.
We know what causes lung cancer.
We know what causes AIDs.
We know what causes an alchohol damaged liver.
Help the kids like this first, and help those who asked for what they got later.

[goldstategop]

And if it was your father, mother, siblings, your husband, your wife, or your children? That's why I'm against reducing the value of a human life merely to a question of dollars and cents. Of course if a procedure had no chance of success that's one thing, but its hard to telling any family we won't spend what it costs to save your loved one if there is the slightest chance you could spend another day with them. What I'm getting to is that its very easy in the abstract to say NO but when you have to look at human beings in the flesh most of us can't stomach telling them we can't do all we can do because money was the only barrier. Besides the way I see it is if this experimental procedure would make a real difference to this family, Kaiser should just swallow the costs involved. That is if a real medical benefit from performing it could be established. And I will never back away from my conviction that human life is inherently precious. We're a society that finds loosening the purse strings to fund abortions is no problem but its suddenly a matter of some bottom line that needs to be met to save someone we can save if we just had the money to do it. That's where our priorities are badly screwed up.

[goldstategop]

And if it happens to be you? Are you willing to go quietly into that good night to satisfy some accountant's quest to make sure the numbers on the paper all stay black? Now that's sick.

[goldstategop]

It always is the bottom line. I mean having to live with it as a matter of pragmatic reality is a given but I will never accept the principle that there's something moral involved in sacrificing human lives for want of money to save them.

[kezekiel]

And if it was your father, mother, siblings, your husband, your wife, or your children? That's why I'm against reducing the value of a human life merely to a question of dollars and cents. Goldstate, while I can sympathize with the family, the only reason I am able to insure my family for $418 a month with Kaiser is because somebody is watching the pursestrings. I can't afford the kind of coverage you feel companies should provide. I know that sounds harsh, but that's just a reality of life. My family gets great care from Kaiser at a reasonable price (all things considered, though I could rent a small house for that in other parts of the country).

Think of it less in terms of money than in terms of resources. The more of our resources we devote to health care, the less that are availble for other things, like schools, food, housing, clothing, transportation, amenities... where would you draw the line?

[sinkspur]

Besides the way I see it is if this experimental procedure would make a real difference to this family, Kaiser should just swallow the costs involved.

So, if Kaiser "swallows" the cost (roughly $1.2 million for both children), which procedures with greater likelihoods for success for other families will they NOT fund because Kaiser simply doesn't have the money?

[sinkspur]

I mean having to live with it as a matter of pragmatic reality is a given but I will never accept the principle that there's something moral involved in sacrificing human lives for want of money to save them.

So, then, you sound like someone amenable to nationalized health care. But, remember, a nationalized health care system will also have a finite pool of money and resources.

The procedures for these children, under a nationalized system, wouldn't even get a hearing.

[Godel]

I don't want to sound cold hearted, but people die. I can foresee a time within a few decades or centuries where every single death can be avoided albeit at an enormous cost. How is it possible to spend 5 times the average person's lifelong income to cure one persons disease? Where do we draw the line? Must we institute government healthcare, and bankrupt out entire society trying to stave off death? Should we cancel space exploration and every possible investment/luxury in order to pay for one more $20 million operation for someone destined to die?

It's sad when anyone dies, but surely you can see that eventually every disease will be curable albeit at an astronomical price or with a slim chance of success. I happen to believe that the quality of life is more important than the quantity of life. It is not worth bankruping our society spending 10 times peoples lifelong incomes to cure one persons disease.

If you can afford the treatment for your disease, great. If you can't afford it then accept your death gracefully, because you have no right to put thousands of people into wage slavery so that you might live. If we truly believe that freedom is more important than life then we must fight against this.

I applaud Kaiser's position of not blowing a disproportionate share of their assets to cure one person and instead saving it to treat the vast majority. Health care is a business, and NO ONE is entitled to something for nothing.

[goldstategop]

You're right about one thing, its a roulette. And its just too bad someone has an extremely rare disorder. Yeah some have to die so others can live. That's way its always been. And the truth even in the richest and most prosperous country in the world we still face finite resources. For want of a better term the scenario you've described is called triage. I'm not glad someone said NO but if someone did I'm glad the decision wasn't mine. Being a member of Kaiser myself, they do have to watch out for the bottom line. As I said before I can never accept the principle involved, but I'm pragmatic enough to acknowledge we all we have to live with a reality virtually all of us in this life abhor.

[concerned about politics]

So, if Kaiser "swallows" the cost (roughly $1.2 million for both children), which procedures with greater likelihoods for success for other families will they NOT fund because Kaiser simply doesn't have the money?

Hopefully the ones that are self inflicted. It's not that they haven't been warned. They simply choose not to listen and become the burden of others. You dance, you pay your own piper.
These kids didn't do this to themselves. They're asking for help.

[sinkspur]

Kaiser can color this anyway they like, but it was still a business decision. The above statement is evidence that the panel decided death to be in the best interests of the children.

Could you produce the evidence that these procedures, in fact, forestall the inevitable? All I see is that former recipients are "doing well."

Rolling the dice is something that doctors do every day. Medical resources are not infinite. Risk assessments are done in the medical world everyday. This is simply an extension of that, made by medical experts.