US Health Insurance company intentionally cut coverage for patients with HIV

[CptStern]

If you're not familiar with the concept of rescission, it's a lovely business practice of health insurance companies in which they examine patients records to find a reason to "rescind" coverage after finding out that a customer has a life-threatening illness. This saves them money. That's not news. What is news is that according to new documents revealed in a court case, one insurer "Fortis" (now known as Assurant Health) specifically targeted people who were newly diagnosed with HIV

"Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell's case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.
â?

best healthcare system in the world amirite?


http://consumerist.com/2010/03/insurance-company-intentionally-targeted-dropped-hiv-patients.html


reminds me of a segment from an episode of This American Life podcast:

..the segment focuses on Robin Beaton, a woman diagnosed with invasive breast cancer whose insurance was rescinded after Blue Cross Blue Shield misinterpreted an old acne diagnosis of Beaton's as pre-cancerous

http://consumerist.com/2009/08/this-american-life-on-health-insurances-fine-print.html

 

[V-Man339]

Yeah, I don't advocate the new healthcare system, but shit like this makes anything preferable to being at the mercy of a bunch of money loving shareholders.

 

[Eejit]

Someone needs to give the board members of that company HIV.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I'll be devil's advocate. They have HIV, they're ****ed, why waste money on them?

 

[AJ Rimmer]

I'll be devil's advocate. They have HIV, they're ****ed, why waste money on them?

Cause people can live for decades with HIV now?

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Them drugs expensive though.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Them drugs expensive though.

Mmm. Them drugs keep people alive though. For an average of 32 years.

 

[15357]

Mmm. Them drugs keep people alive though. For an average of 32 years.

That doesn't go into the calculations of a private company.

Thus why I advocate, against my better judgment, national health insurance.


Edit: Actually it might. "Hmm, it seems that according to our data, we'll have to pay for this bastard's pills for another 32 years." "Cut him off, ****er's no longer good to us."

 

[Noodle]

Question: why should taxpayers be charged because someone got HIV from a dirty prostitute and/or dirty heroin syringe?

The same question applies to people who became obese because they eat too much damn fat food.

 

[kineaesth]

Question: why should taxpayers be charged because someone got HIV from a dirty prostitute and/or dirty heroin syringe?

Hi you make me really ****ing mad.

 

[15357]

Question: why should taxpayers be charged because someone got HIV from a dirty prostitute and/or dirty heroin syringe?

The same question applies to people who became obese because they eat too much damn fat food.

Because....


It'd be bad PR for the government if AIDS-infested crack users died on the doorsteps of hospitals because we refused them medical aid.


Also, despite some shortcomings, such as the things you mentioned, most people can't afford $2000 for a broken arm. It is in the very interest of the nation to protect its manpower resources.


EDIT: Still, I get your point. Let's send obese and HIV-positive people to "happy camps" where they'll "work" for their "medical aid".

 

[Solaris]

Question: why should taxpayers be charged because someone got HIV from a dirty prostitute and/or dirty heroin syringe?

The same question applies to people who became obese because they eat too much damn fat food.

You're not a decent person.

 

[Krynn72]

Question: why should taxpayers be charged because someone got HIV from a dirty prostitute and/or dirty heroin syringe?

The same question applies to people who became obese because they eat too much damn fat food.

Protip: With better and more available healthcare, these problems will be less numerous.

 

[Solaris]

I don't think Noodle is the sort of person who will ever be won over in this debate. He's the sort of person I wouldn't want to share a society with and am glad I don't.

Some people think the welfare of their fellow mankind is their own concern, others do not.

 

[Dan]

My cousin just got diagnosed with some rare anti-immune disease. Basically his body attacks his skin and it gets pretty gross. It may very well kill him, but in the mean time it costs $40000 per treatment, and he needs at least a dozen to beat this episode with no guarantee against a future episode. He doesn't have insurance so he will probably have to sell his home and all of possessions. He may have to divorce his wife to avoid eating away all of her livelihood. My uncle will probably foot a good deal of it too. He is pretty well off at least, but he won't be for long.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Sorry to hear about that hopefully Obama's plan can help.

 

[Shyam]

AIDS is so 1990's. Cancer is the new fad now.

 

[Noodle]

Chill out! I was seriously asking for the thought process behind those examples.

's a difference between helping someone out that drew the short straw in life and helping someone out that keeps screwing themselves without any sense of personal responsibility and accountability.

I'll always try to save you from drowning, but if you keep intentionally holding your head underwater trying to breathe water, I may not risk my own well being for the sake of your stupidity.

If I am wrong, at least try to make your flames educating.

 

[kineaesth]

Chill out! I was seriously asking for the thought process behind those examples.

's a difference between helping someone out that drew the short straw in life and helping someone out that keeps screwing themselves without any sense of personal responsibility and accountability.

I'll always try to save you from drowning, but if you keep intentionally holding your head underwater trying to breathe water, I may not risk my own well being for the sake of your stupidity.

If I am wrong, at least try to make your flames educating.

Well let's see - HIV infection is very infrequently intentional. Some people make stupid decisions, sure. Some people choose to have unprotected sex with a partner that they are not 100 percent sure of the serostatus of.
But perhaps that's not someone engaging in a potentially risky behaviour because they want to - there's a fair number of HIV infections that occur because of lack of education; lack of knowledge about the possible transmissions routes, lack of knowledge about what precautions need to be taken, lack of knowledge about anything to do with the virus at all. And guess what, a nurse who gets accidentally pricked with a syringe or needle that contains seropositive blood can get HIV too! It's not just those DEVIANT SOCIAL OUTCAST DRUG USERS.
Some stats!
25 percent of American adults have genital herpes.
At least one in four Americans will contract an STD at some point in their lives.
(this figure is contradictory, but)
At least 50% of sexually active people will have genital HPV at some time in their lives.

So guess what! Making people with STDs out to be some these grotesque, idiotic morons doesn't mean anything! That cute girl you meet at the bar? She could well have HPV, and once you've got HPV there ain't no getting rid of it.

It's insulting and ignorant to label those who contract STDs as stupid and self-destructive, because, odds are, one day you might end up with a long-term STD yourself.

Is that enough flaming for you

 

[15357]

Well let's see - HIV infection is very infrequently intentional. Some people make stupid decisions, sure. Some people choose to have unprotected sex with a partner that they are not 100 percent sure of the serostatus of.
But perhaps that's not someone engaging in a potentially risky behaviour because they want to - there's a fair number of HIV infections that occur because of lack of education; lack of knowledge about the possible transmissions routes, lack of knowledge about what precautions need to be taken, lack of knowledge about anything to do with the virus at all. And guess what, a nurse who gets accidentally pricked with a syringe or needle that contains seropositive blood can get HIV too! It's not just those DEVIANT SOCIAL OUTCAST DRUG USERS.
Some stats!
25 percent of American adults have genital herpes.
At least one in four Americans will contract an STD at some point in their lives.
(this figure is contradictory, but)
At least 50% of sexually active people will have genital HPV at some time in their lives.

So guess what! Making people with STDs out to be some these grotesque, idiotic morons doesn't mean anything! That cute girl you meet at the bar? She could well have HPV, and once you've got HPV there ain't no getting rid of it.

It's insulting and ignorant to label those who contract STDs as stupid and self-destructive, because, odds are, one day you might end up with a long-term STD yourself.

Is that enough flaming for you

So, illegalizing premarital sex would probably save thousands of lives and save billions of dollars for the nation? Because that's the vibe I'm getting here.

Besides, I believe that

The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations.

So, more important than treating HIV infected individuals is educating people not to have sex, ever. Or until they're married.

...the median survival time after developing AIDS is only 9.2 months.[38] HAART is thought to increase survival time by between 4 and 12 years

So, what we have here is an economic problem. How much it will cost for the nation to support treatment of people with AIDS, and will it be profitable to do so? In that average of 8 years time that such an individual may survive, what will be the length of time that that individual is still productive? Will the productive, monetary, or social contributions of that person made in that length of time be worth it? These are the questions that we need to ask before we accept AIDS-infected peoples be treated with taxpayer money. Speaking from a humane perspective, this is horrible. However, from the perspective of the highest plane of national interest, an individual with AIDS cannot contribute to manpower resources (birth, etc.), and in a few years may be incapable of yielding a profit from the vast investments that the State - in its infinite wisdom - has seen fit to grant since the birth of that individual.

Also different is the treatment of HIV-infected individuals. The majority of them are individuals with a particularly deviant lifestyle (in the conservative sense, ie. premarital sex, drug users). Disregarding medical personnel infected by accidents, would it be productive to treat them? Would they become more productive members of society when treated? Would their newly begotten life expectancy of some 32 years yield some productivity? Untreated and left for dead, they'll survive 6.5 years after the point of infection. Would the increase in manpower labor-hours (the amount of time an individual will be productive before they are left incapable of productivity) be enough to offset the losses suffered by the taxpayer and the benevolent State to treat such individuals?

What will be the disability-adjusted productivity expectancy for those people? What will the costs and benefits of treating them be? Ideally, we should help every last living soul on Earth to lead healthier lives. Unfortunately, we can't. The scarce resources granted to us by our Maker prevents that.

So, do we help everyone, or do we help the ones that will likely become productive members of society, those who are supported by statistical data that they will be able to contribute something before their demise?

That's the question that I want all of you to answer.



I hope in your hearts the answer is to help everyone.






But the answer in your, rational, god-denouncing heads, for the sake of the Sacred State, and beloved humanity, should be the latter.

 

[kineaesth]

So, illegalizing premarital sex would probably save thousands of lives and save billions of dollars for the nation? Because that's the vibe I'm getting here.

Well shit, from an entirely pragmatic point of view, if no one ever had sex, there would be no STDs!
That won't ever work, of course.

So, more important than treating HIV infected individuals is educating people not to have sex, ever. Or until they're married.

I would say that education about HIV is nearly equally as important as treatment. Education about not having sex, ever, would be tough to pull off. (unless you mean some sort of inventive chemical education) And marriage is essentially just a point beyond which a legal contract exists, I don't believe that's on the table at all.

[stuff about being a productive, HIV positive member of society]
So, do we help everyone, or do we help the ones that will likely become productive members of society, those who are supported by statistical data that they will be able to contribute something before their demise?

Interesting concept, but nigh impossible to define. Personally I think that takes it to a point where it doesn't even make sense to consider. How do you even find "statistical data that they will be able to contribute something before their demise?"

I hope in your hearts the answer is to help everyone.

You're an okay guy. The disease is here, we have to manage the fallout.

 

[15357]

Well shit, from an entirely pragmatic point of view, if no one ever had sex, there would be no STDs!
That won't ever work, of course.

I would say that education about HIV is nearly equally as important as treatment. Education about not having sex, ever, would be tough to pull off. (unless you mean some sort of inventive chemical education) And marriage is essentially just a point beyond which a legal contract exists, I don't believe that's on the table at all.

Yeah, I was kinda joking about that. Btw, it seems to me that those stupid enough to have unprotected sex with a partner whose 'blood status' is unknown won't be the ones who listens to sex education classes during school.

Besides, we can't kill the sex instinct.

Interesting concept, but nigh impossible to define. Personally I think that takes it to a point where it doesn't even make sense to consider. How do you even find "statistical data that they will be able to contribute something before their demise?"

Kinda like one's total income after infection, one's total consumption, crimes committed, and cost of treatment, and the cost which is covered by government health services, etc. It'll take extensive studies, though, I guess. Dividing infected people according to income, age, marital status, psychiatric evaluations, etc. It might be cheaper to just treat them all.

You're an okay guy. The disease is here, we have to manage the fallout.

What we need is a vaccine. Seriously, a vaccine would solve all our problems, and we won't have to debate about this. :E Too bad it's not near completion, but I've heard of some breakthroughs.

 

[kineaesth]

What we need is a vaccine. Seriously, a vaccine would solve all our problems, and we won't have to debate about this. :E Too bad it's not near completion, but I've heard of some breakthroughs.

I agree.

I'm still all for education though, what I've heard of America's has all been pretty dire. I don't think you absolutely have to painstakingly inform everyone of every detail of the risks involved in unprotected sex, but at least making people consciously aware of the risks involved in various sexual activities would be enough to make those people at least sometimes weigh up what they're about to do

run on sentence take 2

 

[Noodle]

I do agree that a vaccine or more effective (and cheaper) treatment is the ideal solution. I think we can all agree on that.

I disagree, however, that education on the subject is equally important to affordable treatment. Rather, I think education is way more important. The creation, availability, and spreading of knowledge is a lot more important than reducing the neccessity of knowledge. At this point (in America, anyway) kids get plenty of sex-ed through middle and high school, and I've seen first hand how many of them literally say (even in class) that there is no f**king way they're waiting until they know better. (pun intentional)

It's like bungee jumping. It makes more sense to educate people more on the risks of bungee jumping than it does to cheapen splat treatment. Also, make shorter cliffs and better ropes.

Another solution would be to do the best to remove the social stigma from std testing and the subject in general. Here I imagine an ointment that makes herpes glow under a blacklight.

On a related note, this is also why I think our education system is in as much trouble as healthcare.

 

[kineaesth]

I do agree that a vaccine or more effective (and cheaper) treatment is the ideal solution. I think we can all agree on that.

I disagree, however, that education on the subject is equally important to affordable treatment. Rather, I think education is way more important. The creation, availability, and spreading of knowledge is a lot more important than reducing the neccessity of knowledge.

The problem there is that people have HIV already. And with limited funding, I would say that it would be best to focus on treatment for those already infected.

Another solution would be to do the best to remove the social stigma from std testing and the subject in general.

why should taxpayers be charged because someone got HIV from a dirty prostitute and/or dirty heroin syringe?

... Right.