OPINIONWhat editorial writers are saying about health insurance company rescissionsIn congressional testimony, health plan executives explained -- and tried to defend -- a practice in which sick patients are told their care will not be covered.Other Views on Medical News. July 13, 2009. A sampling of editorials in newspapers across the country shows wide condemnation of the practice as going well beyond protecting companies from fraud and into the realm of denying care because it's expensive. Insurance company schemesCongressional committees heard a lot [in June] about the devious schemes used by health insurance companies to drop or shortchange sick patients. It was a damning portrait -- and one Americans know from painful personal experience -- of an industry that all too often puts profits ahead of patients. Calculating insurance interests[In June] three insurance executives made starkly clear why President Obama is right to insist on a public plan option in any health reform package. The three stood before Congress and refused to stop the practice of canceling coverage of sick policyholders for unrelated medical reasons, even in cases where the firms can't show intentional fraud by the policyholders. The industry should be relieved that all Obama is threatening it with is a rival plan and not a SWAT team. Keeping insurers honestWhile insurers certainly are entitled to deny payment in cases of actual fraud, Congress should make sure that any health care reform legislation contains strictures against inadvertent acts now used to justify rescission. Anyone who has ever dealt with insurance payment or reimbursement following an illness knows that it can be a complex, time-consuming and often puzzling process. Patients should not be hit with the additional malady of bills denied for bogus reasons. Actual coverage is part of insuranceBut what we have learned about free market health insurance is that even when one can get an individual policy it is often like having no insurance at all. A standard in the industry is to look for ways to reap premiums, then skip out on promised benefits. This is the status quo Republicans are fighting to retain. St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, June 28 Public option? Insurance executives make definitive caseWhich of the two is more likely to pay a legitimate health insurance claim -- a private insurer or Medicare? The answer is Medicare. How do we know? The private insurers said so. Executives of three large health insurers audaciously told a House committee that they would continue canceling medical coverage for sick policyholders. ... The cancellations go well beyond applicants who intentionally lie or commit fraud on their insurance applications. One woman told Congress her policy was rescinded after she was diagnosed for breast cancer. The reason? She failed to disclose treatment for acne. ... Rescissions aren't isolated horror stories. ... This is the system that opponents of a public option want to preserve? The Tomah (Wis.) Journal, June 24 This content was published online only. Copyright 2009 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
|
Featured stories     
« Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
Next »
Current topicsMost-viewed
This weekUnspent war funds eyed to avoid years of Medicare doctor pay cuts Rite Aid clinics place new twist on "doc-in-a-box" Get our email alertsUse our one-step registration. Learn more Your information will not be shared. Privacy policyColumns and series
From the vaultQuotable"Our goal really is to provide the right care for patients at the right time. Not too much and not too little." Steven Weinberger, MD, co-author of a list developed by the American College of Physicians of 37 clinical situations in which screenings and medical tests provide little or no benefit |
|||||||||
SHARE
