Generally I agree with you that the healthcare system in this country needs a major overhaul.
But there was an interesting line in the article... "Despite the reversal, CIGNA said in an e-mail statement before she died that there was a lack of medical evidence showing the procedure would work in Nataline's case."
This raises some interesting questions... what is the source for this "evidence" ? Was there a second (or third opinion) sought before the transplant request? What about in the appeal process? The girl was in a vegetative state for weeks. Not to be callous but was the vegetative state a result of liver failure or was she already in that condition (in which case was she really a good transplant candidate)?
I'm all for giving everyone the best possible care but I also want to see a person who can benefit from the transplant receive it first. I can also see the insurance company's side in this case in not wanting to pay for a procedure that is not going to prolong her lie or improve her condition.
The article is definitely slanted toward the anti-insurance company side of things. Sensational stories like this don't help foster productive conversation about how to fix anything.
Although I have to admit my bias because when Henry was born 10 weeks early, we never saw a bill for any of his care (although I don't know how much was paid by the insurance company and how much was paid by SSI). It's not all companies. But we have to look at why one company covers something and another doesn't and try to normalize the standards across the board.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
There's an interesting line in the story...
Date: 2007-12-21 07:16 pm (UTC)But there was an interesting line in the article...
"Despite the reversal, CIGNA said in an e-mail statement before she died that there was a lack of medical evidence showing the procedure would work in Nataline's case."
This raises some interesting questions... what is the source for this "evidence" ?
Was there a second (or third opinion) sought before the transplant request? What about in the appeal process?
The girl was in a vegetative state for weeks. Not to be callous but was the vegetative state a result of liver failure or was she already in that condition (in which case was she really a good transplant candidate)?
I'm all for giving everyone the best possible care but I also want to see a person who can benefit from the transplant receive it first. I can also see the insurance company's side in this case in not wanting to pay for a procedure that is not going to prolong her lie or improve her condition.
The article is definitely slanted toward the anti-insurance company side of things. Sensational stories like this don't help foster productive conversation about how to fix anything.
Although I have to admit my bias because when Henry was born 10 weeks early, we never saw a bill for any of his care (although I don't know how much was paid by the insurance company and how much was paid by SSI). It's not all companies. But we have to look at why one company covers something and another doesn't and try to normalize the standards across the board.