Yet another story in the long fight of for-profit “health” insurance companies to protect their right to hurt, disable, maim and kill people into order to boost their stock price:

One of the worst abuses of the private health insurance industry is its practice of denying claims to pay for necessary care for patients. This practice has become so rampant in the industry that a recent study by the California Nurses Association found that a whopping 21 percent of all insurance claims filed in the first half of 2009 in the state of California were denied by insurers.

As the story of six-year-old Madison Leuchtmann of Franklin County, MO, demonstrates, even children are victims of this insurance company abuse. Madison was born with bilateral atresia, which means she lacks ear canals in both ears. In order to hear, she wears a special device on a headband that allows her to make out sounds. Despite her disability, Madison is at the top of her kindergarten class and is slowly learning to read.

Yet Madison, due to her growth, will soon require a new hearing implant to be able to recognize sounds. Her hearing and speech therapist warns that “if she doesn’t get her implants by age seven, she’s not going to be able to blend her words. … She won’t be able to hear herself [talk].” Madison’s pediatrician, Dr. Randall Clary, also insists that without the implant, the girl may never be able to hear again.

Unfortunately, the Leuchtmann’s family insurer, Cigna, has issued “one denial after another,” flatly refusing to cover the $20,000 bill for the implant. In a written statement to the local news station Fox 2, Cigna explained, “It is not unusual for commercial benefit plans to exclude hearing assisted devices,” prompting Dr. Clary to angrily respond, “This is obviously medically necessary. You have a child that has no ear canals!” Dr. Clary also told Fox 2 that he sees these sort of denials “on a weekly basis.”

The United States is the only developed country without a universal, cradle-to-the-grave health care system. In no other developed country would a girl be on “the verge of never hearing again” because a for-profit insurance company decided that its bottom line was more important than keeping a child from going deaf.

Metavirus filed this under: , ,  
  1. Gherald says:

    Really, every other developed country covers $20,000 hearing implants? With every major insurance plan on offer? U.S. Medicaid and S-CHIP cover them as well?

    I have no idea, but these are questions I would need answered before I see an outrage.

    Moreover, my outrage would not be directed at "evil profit motives" (which are what bring us the existance of $20,000 health implants to begin with) but rather the lack of consumer choice for avoiding plans with abnormal coverage denials.

    • Well, I'll just go out on a limb hear and say that a child born with a birth defect whereby she had no ear canals, and the only way to save her from permanent deafness was to implant a hearing device in what would have been the ear canal area, most countries would deem that to be a medically necessary procedure (see, e.g., pacemaker) and would cover it.

      Just a point of clarification, my outrage is not directed specifically at "evil profit motives". I am outraged at evil profit outcomes. The profit motive is a great thing and produces untold wealth for people all up and down the ladder. However, when taken to extremes, when people's lives are at stake, and especially when the profit motive is nicely packaged into a hyper-protected/consequence-free (i.e., no civil liability for denial of claims) environment in which smart regulation is nowhere to be found, you get really atrocious profit-motivated outcomes.

    • Metavirus says:

      Well, I'll just go out on a limb hear and say that a child born with a birth defect whereby she had no ear canals, and the only way to save her from permanent deafness was to implant a hearing device in what would have been the ear canal area, most countries would deem that to be a medically necessary procedure (see, e.g., pacemaker) and would cover it.

      Just a point of clarification, my outrage is not directed specifically at "evil profit motives". I am outraged at evil profit outcomes. The profit motive is a great thing and produces untold wealth for people all up and down the ladder. However, when taken to extremes, when people's lives are at stake, and especially when the profit motive is nicely packaged into a hyper-protected/consequence-free (i.e., no civil liability for denial of claims) environment in which smart regulation is nowhere to be found, you get really atrocious profit-motivated outcomes.

  2. schu says:

    Part of Cigna's over all business plan, it took then fifteen years to settle all the laws suits over their HMO's.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Your Vintners