The president of the "insurance" company should pay with his life.

Its pre-meditated murder after all.

Murder for money.

A vote for Dennis Kucinich is the biggest F-U I can give to these insurance bullies.

to upsetting to talk about

This might be a bit too much for Geragos. He did a shitty job on the Winona Ryder shoplifting case. She was convicted. Scott Petersen was convicted. I believe they both were guilty. Mark Geragos knew they were guilty too. His lazyness came across like a slap in the face. I think this family needs a real lawyer to take on this coroporation. John Edwards would take them to the cleaners.

jack foster @ 7:

This might be a bit too much for Geragos. He did a shitty job on the Winona Ryder shoplifting case. She was convicted. Scott Petersen was convicted. I believe they both were guilty. Mark Geragos knew they were guilty too. His lazyness came across like a slap in the face. I think this family needs a real lawyer to take on this coroporation. John Edwards would take them to the cleaners.

If Geragos is on the case I'm sure Cigna can relax over the holidays.
My question: Did the Sarkisyan family call him, or did he call them?

UCLA Medical Center needs to be apportioned at least some of the blame for this tragic death by healthcare malfeasance.

Many hospitals and health care providers CAN and DO provide life-saving procedures even when they know they have little chance of getting paid in full.

Prestigious hospitals are capable and of using their clout apres procedure, to make sure insurance companies do the right thing.

Either UCLA Medical Center just doesn't care or -- perhaps they just lack the requisite prestige?

Certainly lack the backbone.

jack foster @ 7:

This might be a bit too much for Geragos. He did a shitty job on the Winona Ryder shoplifting case. She was convicted. Scott Petersen was convicted. I believe they both were guilty. Mark Geragos knew they were guilty too. His lazyness came across like a slap in the face. I think this family needs a real lawyer to take on this coroporation. John Edwards would take them to the cleaners.

Yer comparin' apples(Geragos, a criminal defense attorney) and oranges (Edwards, a civil litigator). Clarence Darrow was a great criminal defense attorney, but he lost may high profile cases(see: Scopes Monkey Trial).

But, yeah, there's gonna be some civil litigator out there who can make CIGNA pay dearly. And, if we're lucky, there will be a judge out there hearin' this case who won't be afraid to set the type of precedent that will cause major reform in our healthcare system.

These for-profit companies have almost a fiduciary responsibility to NOT deliver care, as their primary responsibility is to maximize profits to their shareholders. The not-for-profit, old school HMOs(like Kaiser, Group Health...) aren't perfect. But they don't have this conflict of interest.

Geragos is taking a pretty good and cynical bet here that CIGNA will settle out of court for a good amount of money because they don't want this in the news. No health insurance company wants the public to know the depths they have sunken to deny benefits to people or how they reward their employees who excel at this. I don't admire him in the least and think he's an ambulance chaser looking for the easy payoff...

The chances of a liver transplant actually saving this girls life were low to the point of non-existant. It was ultimately the doctors at UCLA who decided not to do the procedure. This country cannot afford to do outrageously expensive medical procedures on everyone who wants or may need one while so many dont even get basic preventative health care.
We need to fix our system so that our health care money goes toward medical care and not to insurance company shareholders and hospital bureaucrats. Then doctors will be able to make reasonable decisions.

porcupine @ 19:

The chances of a liver transplant actually saving this girls life were low to the point of non-existant. It was ultimately the doctors at UCLA who decided not to do the procedure. This country cannot afford to do outrageously expensive medical procedures on everyone who wants or may need one while so many dont even get basic preventative health care.
We need to fix our system so that our health care money goes toward medical care and not to insurance company shareholders and hospital bureaucrats. Then doctors will be able to make reasonable decisions.

Yep it was a lost cause. How many dollars do you have to throw at a lost cause, in futility, to prove you are human?

That been said and the being the case I still hate health insurance companies. They are parasites on our society and economy.

Rub R. D'Key @ 22:

Dear Porcupine,

How "outrageously expensive" is any life?

Outrageously expensive is if it deprives us of the resources to give basic childhood vaccines or prenatal care to thousands of needy citizens. We simply cannot afford to provide all things to all patients under our current system.

It's really sad because essentially buying insurance is like gambling...you are betting your going to get sick or have an accident that you will need coverage for, you insurance company is betting that you will not get sick and they will simply get paid for doing nothing. and if you live your whole life without having any serious problem that needs your insurance to pay out for what you have paid in you do not get any money back at the end of it all, you simply loose your bet. but if you do get sick then the insurance company has an escape clause that will get them out of really loosing any money. I say if you don't want to loose don't bet and that goes for the business that takes the bet as well.

porcupine @ 19:

The chances of a liver transplant actually saving this girls life were low to the point of non-existant. It was ultimately the doctors at UCLA who decided not to do the procedure. This country cannot afford to do outrageously expensive medical procedures on everyone who wants or may need one while so many dont even get basic preventative health care.

Complete and utter horseshit.

Jon @ 24:

Well, how far back does this denial of a liver transplant go? Was she denied when it was still a viable option and she could have lived?

The point is that it should not be up to a bureaucracy to decide if you should get a potentially life saving operation, it should be the doctor and the patient. And if the insurance companies go broke because they pay out more then they take in...then they should have gotten into a different business...isn't that what the free-market is all about?

Please watch the movie, Sicko. It shows truth, a rare commodity
in the USA. I have a heart that is giving out. I'm old & don't expect
to live forever but if you don't mind I'll give you an example of what
is happening to me. Months ago I had a simple half hour procedure
in the hospital. The cardiologist replaced my 5yr ICD. That few hours
was $50,000. They fouled up so the blasted thing got infected. A five
day stay at Yale New Haven Hospital loading me with antibiotics did squat.
They sent me home to continue oral antibiotics (didn't work) so back to
Yale for another week after they removed the new ICD. The company,
Metronic, has been hit with a huge class action suit because of faulty
wires so my doctor found some genius from NY who lasered the wires out.
It hasn't healed yet but when it does, back to Yale I go for a new ICD
on the other side of my chest. The cost for this mistake will be enormorous.
I worry about my insurance every day. My daughter is a state DA which is
a bit of luck. I'm tired & old but she urges me to sue these incompodent fools
if I run into anymore trouble. All this & all we hear is how we have the best
healthcare in the world. Bullshit. :-(

Would SOMEONE kindly answer this unanswered question I asked yesterday?

Timmy_D11 @ 230:

Just one question - would a liver have DEFINITELY saved her life or did she have other problems?

Dear Congress,
Medicare for all. Now. Quit stalling trying to look "serious" to David "Fred Thompson's health care plan is the greatest" Broder

flex @ 34:

Bad news, Mark Geragos is only in it for the lime lite or the $$$. He's a slimy, lying, crooked, deceitful snake oil salesman. i saw his sleazy antics first hand while following the Laci Peterson Murder.

I totally agree. I feel for the family and think Geragos is only going to add to their pain and disappointment.

Single payer and getting completely out of Iraq should be the absolutely necessary positions for anybody to be seriously considered a viable dem candidate. Unfortunately, although you will see a lot of these kind of stories on 'lefty' blogs, you will not see a co commitment outrage at the 3 moneyed dems lack of support for Single Payer. Compare h/o/e's plans to Kucinich's. Kucinich gets to the heart of the matter while the others have elaborate, and really unworkable schemes that will eventually discredit any role for gov in healthcare. If the people who get upset at these kind of stories made Single Payer a make-or-break issue, h/o/e would soon change their tunes. It is up to you.

Timmy_D11 @ 31:

Would SOMEONE kindly answer this unanswered question I asked yesterday?

Timmy_D11 @ 230:

Just one question - would a liver have DEFINITELY saved her life or did she have other problems?

There are no definites in medicine only chances. A liver transplant would have given her a chance at life. They gave her a 65% chance of living with a transplant. Without one she would have definitely died as we've seen. And the insurance company knew this. They didn't care about the 65%. They cared about how much they would have to pay out. Insurance companies don't see a face they see a figure.

A CALL TO ANYONE WHO IS INSURED BY THESE HEARTLESS CRIMINALS.
If you can change providers.

To ALL COMPANIES INSURING YOUR STAFF THROUGH THESE HEARTLESS CRIMINALS.
CHANGE carriers!

justabill @ 40:

Timmy_D11 @ 31:

Would SOMEONE kindly answer this unanswered question I asked yesterday?

Timmy_D11 @ 230:

Just one question - would a liver have DEFINITELY saved her life or did she have other problems?

That's an absurd question. No transplant is "DEFINITELY" going to save a life. I doubt there is any medical procedure will ever "DEFINITELY" save a life.

Should people quit performing CPR or a Heimlich maneuver on people who need it because it won't DEFINITELY save their life? Why have a 911 system at all because it won't "DEFINITELY" help save a life, put out a fire or stop a crime in progress?

The question is not absurd at all, though your answer is. The original commenter was asking what sort of a chance the transplant would give her to survive, though perhaps it was unclearly phrased with the use of the word "definitely." This is a reasonable question to ask, and another commenter cited 65 percent as the projected probability of survival.

It sucks to die, it sucks when people we love die, but going off the stick when someone asks a legitimate question (as I believe Timmy's question was) does not contribute to enlightened debate.

WIDEPART @ 41:

A CALL TO ANYONE WHO IS INSURED BY THESE HEARTLESS CRIMINALS.
If you can change providers.

To ALL COMPANIES INSURING YOUR STAFF THROUGH THESE HEARTLESS CRIMINALS.
CHANGE carriers!</blockquote

It's a shame but all these insurance companies are all the same.
They are criminals, but so is our government. What's the
solution?

WIDEPART @ 41:

A CALL TO ANYONE WHO IS INSURED BY THESE HEARTLESS CRIMINALS.
If you can change providers.

To ALL COMPANIES INSURING YOUR STAFF THROUGH THESE HEARTLESS CRIMINALS.
CHANGE carriers!

To who, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Aetna? You think any of them would have done anything different? Insurance companies are all the same and would have handled her case the same way. Put your money in a Health Savings Account and pray you have enough in there when you get sick. And hope you die before you retire. That's the only way to beat insurance companies.

Castanea @ 43:

justabill @ 40:

Timmy_D11 @ 31:

Would SOMEONE kindly answer this unanswered question I asked yesterday?

Timmy_D11 @ 230:

That's an absurd question. No transplant is "DEFINITELY" going to save a life. I doubt there is any medical procedure will ever "DEFINITELY" save a life.

Should people quit performing CPR or a Heimlich maneuver on people who need it because it won't DEFINITELY save their life? Why have a 911 system at all because it won't "DEFINITELY" help save a life, put out a fire or stop a crime in progress?

The question is not absurd at all, though your answer is. The original commenter was asking what sort of a chance the transplant would give her to survive, though perhaps it was unclearly phrased with the use of the word "definitely." This is a reasonable question to ask, and another commenter cited 65 percent as the projected probability of survival.

It sucks to die, it sucks when people we love die, but going off the stick when someone asks a legitimate question (as I believe Timmy's question was) does not contribute to enlightened debate.

I disagree. The word DEFINITELY was used intentionally in his post. He used all caps to stress his point. I think it was set up for a weak argument.

please note that the insurance co. made an exception to cover this liver transplant only in this one case...that means that others needing the same treatment will be effed as usual--unless they can mobilize a mass of people to protest.
there is only this response because of outside pressure.
who protests for the 37 year old working class guy? forget about a homeless person.
even when ppl do protest, what do they get? what did she get?
i am so depressed.

another point. drunk drivers who cause accidents that kill people are sometimes charged with murder...how can they be more guilty of murder than the persons who decided this for the ins. co.?
i'm thinking the drunk driver is not out to kill another person. in his goofy state he probably doesn't even want to hurt anyone, he just wants to go zoom. the ins. exec.? was he out of his head on booze? was his judgement impaired by drugs? i'm thinking he had all of his wits about him and had a long time to consider. it's was no snap decision that led to tragedy. it was a conscience decision that they made that they knew would mean certain death for this person...sounds like murder to me.

John Edwards comments.

“Are you telling me that we’re gonna sit at a table and negotiate with those people?” asked a visibly angered Edwards, challenging the health care companies. “We’re gonna take their power away and we’re not gonna have this kind of problem again.”

Dam I hope he wins.

Jenny'O @ 51:

please note that the insurance co. made an exception to cover this liver transplant only in this one case...that means that others needing the same treatment will be effed as usual--unless they can mobilize a mass of people to protest.
there is only this response because of outside pressure.
who protests for the 37 year old working class guy? forget about a homeless person.
even when ppl do protest, what do they get? what did she get?
i am so depressed.

Don't getdepressed, Jenny, get active. Demand that all dems support Single Payer, demand that lefty blogs make a concerted effort to make all dem candidates support Single Payer. We can all bitch and bitch and bitch but nothing will change unless All of us demand Single Payer.

Greg @ 39:

Timmy_D11 @ 31:

Would SOMEONE kindly answer this unanswered question I asked yesterday?

Timmy_D11 @ 230:

Just one question - would a liver have DEFINITELY saved her life or did she have other problems?

There are no definites in medicine only chances. A liver transplant would have given her a chance at life. They gave her a 65% chance of living with a transplant. Without one she would have definitely died as we've seen. And the insurance company knew this. They didn't care about the 65%. They cared about how much they would have to pay out. Insurance companies don't see a face they see a figure.

65% chance of living for 6 months. She was extremely likely to die, and very shortly, no matter what the doctors did. Most transplant centers won't do a transplant unless the patient has a 50% chance of surviving for 5 years.

IMHO, that's a tough call. How much is our society going to spend to give somebody another 6 months of life? If your answer is, like a lot of the posts here imply, "As much as we need to," I'm not sure where the money's going to come from.

porcupine @ 19:

The chances of a liver transplant actually saving this girls life were low to the point of non-existant. It was ultimately the doctors at UCLA who decided not to do the procedure. This country cannot afford to do outrageously expensive medical procedures on everyone who wants or may need one while so many dont even get basic preventative health care.
We need to fix our system so that our health care money goes toward medical care and not to insurance company shareholders and hospital bureaucrats. Then doctors will be able to make reasonable decisions.

you do understand that not one of your statements of fact in this case is true

the doctors requested the procedure, cigna did what they always do, deny the initial claim

this was not an experimental procedure and it shoulda been covered by the policy

Danno @ 59:

...If your answer is, like a lot of the posts here imply, "As much as we need to," I'm not sure where the money's going to come from.

Iraq.

I sure wish some of you took the colossal costs of Iraq as seriously as you take the much smaller costs of healthcare. You work in the insurance industry, don't you?

First of all, no one except the treating physicians knows the patients history. You can't make judgments based on news reports, but some facts are known:

This woman had leukemia and had recently had a bone marrow transplant (a fact reported in news reports). It sounds like she was suffering from graft v. host disease (I am speculating about this based on news reports). The transplant surgeon was quoted as saying she had a 65% chance 6 month survival rate JUST FROM THE TRANSPLANT. She was also in a "vegetative state" when the liver was available. A transplant surgeon is really not the person to decide if their patient should receive an organ, these decisions are made at a higher level by protocols based on the region of the country the patient is located and the circumstances of the donor.

The way this story is being presented on this blog is biased (which is ok), but also misleading and sensationalized (not ok).

--Blue Girl @ 62:

Greg @ 39:

Timmy_D11 @ 31:

Would SOMEONE kindly answer this unanswered question I asked yesterday?

Timmy_D11 @ 230:

There are no definites in medicine only chances. A liver transplant would have given her a chance at life. They gave her a 65% chance of living with a transplant. Without one she would have definitely died as we've seen. And the insurance company knew this. They didn't care about the 65%. They cared about how much they would have to pay out. Insurance companies don't see a face they see a figure.

I am sorry to say, she had other problems, from what I have read. She had received a bone marrow transplant from her brother as treatment for leukemia. She had received a kidney transplant, apparently.

I am not a physician, but I'm a medical professional (my areas of expertise are in the laboratory, with special certifications in transplant & trauma services). I am certainly not rendering anything other than my own perspective, and I haven't even seen her chart. But...in my experience, patients as sick as she apparently was don't tend to get better. It looks to me like she was probably in a cascade of failure, and was quite possibly to weak for transplant surgery, which is a very traumatic procedure.

Here is my Christmas wish: I wish is we were all this outraged every day over the state of health care in this country without a pretty white girl having to be tied to the railroad tracks.

That last comment was disgusting. You believe that all the outrage here is over a pretty white girl? NO! This happens everyday. The outrage is that this happens every day and not who she was.

some dude named steevo @ 65:

First of all, no one except the treating physicians knows the patients history. You can't make judgments based on news reports, but some facts are known:

This woman had leukemia and had recently had a bone marrow transplant (a fact reported in news reports). It sounds like she was suffering from graft v. host disease (I am speculating about this based on news reports). .

Wait Steve, in one sentence you said we can't make judgments based on news reports then in the next you are making judgments based on news reports. Make up your mind. Do we or do we not make judgments based on news reports? Your selective judgments are ambiguous.

Greg @ 69:

Wait Steve, in one sentence you said we can't make judgments based on news reports then in the next you are making judgments based on news reports. Make up your mind. Do we or do we not make judgments based on news reports? Your selective judgments are ambiguous.

I see your point, but I was explaining this in order to make it perfectly clear that I was speculating. I also have a basis for my judgment based my education as a physician (which I didn't make clear). I was complaining that other people are making judgments on speculation without being open and honest with their arguments or any requisite knowledge to make them.

This is a nasty case all around, but let's separate out what went wrong in this situation. CIGNA said no, because it was experimental. If they said no because she had a 65% chance of survival within 6 months, less than 50% for 5 years, and would have to go off the leukemia drugs to take the transplant drugs, it would be a cruel decision, but one people could stomach. It makes sense logically, but not emotionally.

Would single payer or universal health care have given her the transplant? I'm not sure that would happen either. She would be in that marginal "is this a good use for a liver" category. The docs wanted to do it, and they had a liver. Great. But if they said no, it'd made sense too.

We, as a country, need universal health care. This, however, should not be the poster case for it. There shouldn't be murder charges, for they made a tough decision, and on shaky grounds, but that in itself does not mean it's murder. Let's separate the anger and remorse one feels for the tragic death of a 17 year girl, from the needed logic and rhetoric for a debate on health care. This is tragic and disgusting, but universal health care would have probably had the same outcome.

yellow dog @ 68:

Yellow dog - me - is challenging porcupine's veracity. He, not me, is the one that would let Ms Sarkisian die to save Cigna a couple of bucks.

You have to realize that this just isn't an economic decision. Livers are in short supply and when one is available it must go to the most appropriate patient. The transplant team has a vested interest in getting the liver to their patient. People die waiting for a liver on a daily basis. There is probably a patient who is alive today because they got that liver which this team had to pass on.

Transplant protocols are one of the most intense areas of debate in medical ethics.

And as Steve says: Sometimes, the national healthcare scandal isn’t limited to those without insurance; sometimes it’s equally outrageous what happens to those with insurance:

Actually I believe that was Michael Moore who said that... . no? Wasn't there just a movie or something by him that said something or other about this issue?

yellow dog @ 68:

Greg @ 58:

yellow dog @ 52:

porcupine @ 19:

Do you know this for a fact or are you just blowing this out your ass Bill Frist style in the hope that because you said it, people will believe it?

No it's an absolute lie. The doctors gave her a 65% chance of living with a transplant. That's a far cry from non-existant. And to say that "this country cannot afford to do outrageously expensive medical procedures" is nothing less than obscene. I'm sure yellow dog has the mindset of let them all die and let god sort it out. Why have doctors at all then. If a person comes down with a curable disease and it cost to much money, yellow dog dog says "your fucked".

Please read this whole thing verrrry carefully. Yellow dog - me - is challenging porcupine's veracity. He, not me, is the one that would let Ms Sarkisian die to save Cigna a couple of bucks. I think Cigna is symptomatic of all that is wrong with our current system of access to health care.

Please make sure your brain is in gear before putting your mouth (or keyboard) in motion.

You need to read my post a little more carefully. I was sticking up for you and attacking yellow dog. His post was the lie, not yours. My mouth and keyboard are just fine. You can apologize at any time.

Remember the term "rationing" of health care used by the free market advocates to describe countries with government programs? Well, this patient was rationed right into an early grave. And we don't have those kinds of programs. So much for THAT argument.

Here's a thought: Why not let the entity in charge of dispensing organs for transplants make the decision about who gets the next organ, not the insurance company?

How about it, righties? The insurance company is not in charge of making decisions about a limited number of organs. It's in charge of dispensing dollars to insureds who are entitled to those dollars.

Timmy,
If a liver transplant was not going to be successful, why was she listed in the first place and a donor found? Obviously, the medical staff felt that the transplant was indicated. It's not up to Cigna, or us, to decide this. That's just Bill Frist diagnosing by video. We cannot possibly know the details of Ms. Sarkisyan's condition. But the whole issue would never have come up if the medical team did not believe she would benefit from a transplant in the first place.

Good, I would love to sit on that jewelry, I would convict them of murder, because that is precisely what they they are guilty of.

Greg @ 79:

yellow dog @ 68:

Greg @ 58:

yellow dog @ 52:

No it's an absolute lie. The doctors gave her a 65% chance of living with a transplant. That's a far cry from non-existant. And to say that "this country cannot afford to do outrageously expensive medical procedures" is nothing less than obscene. I'm sure yellow dog has the mindset of let them all die and let god sort it out. Why have doctors at all then. If a person comes down with a curable disease and it cost to much money, yellow dog dog says "your fucked".

Please read this whole thing verrrry carefully. Yellow dog - me - is challenging porcupine's veracity. He, not me, is the one that would let Ms Sarkisian die to save Cigna a couple of bucks. I think Cigna is symptomatic of all that is wrong with our current system of access to health care.

Please make sure your brain is in gear before putting your mouth (or keyboard) in motion.

You need to read my post a little more carefully. I was sticking up for you and attacking yellow dog. His post was the lie, not yours. My mouth and keyboard are just fine. You can apologize at any time.

I don't believe this I AM YELLOW DOG. The originbal comments you attributed to me were made by porcupine. Your keyboard is fine. Ypur reading ability and understanding of how quotes work leave much to be desired.

Once again - I AM YELLOW DOG. I hate what Cigna did. Bean counters are the enemy.

I don't expect an apology - I really think you're beyond understanding.

Timmy_D11 @ 80:

Perhaps I posed the question wrong. What I meant was - was the need for a kidney the only obstacle between a complete recovery and dying?

If a person is in a vegetative state, are they not dead already? (I know 95% of the people here thought so when it came to Terri Schiavo)

And how plentiful are spare livers of her blood type? If the likelihood of her recovering with a liver transplant was low and there aren't that many livers to go around, should it not be given to someone to whom it will make a difference.

I know my questions / statements seem incompassionate and callous, but I do believe they are things that must be considered by doctors, hospitals and insurance companies...in fairness to them.

The Doctors induced her into a coma while awaiting the transplant. The fact is "timmy" that the ceo of cigna has received more than $28,000,000 (yes..million) in compensation for letting people die. That's a lot of livers!

Excellent work on the numbers by AllSpinZone. The problem is that when CIGNA is countered by guys like John Edwards (dude, you rock), the dissenters are wrongly labeled as ambulance chasers bringing "frivolous" lawsuits. Too many, even on the left, buy into that insurance company line.

Protect any lawsuit described by insurance companies (or other multi-billion corporations) as "frivolous" (e.g. Person v. CIGNA, Person v. Telecom, Person v. Lead Toy Co., Person v. Cheney). Believe me, such large companies are more than capable of protecting themselves against any lawsuits which are genuinely "frivolous." But they want more; frivolous has essentially been redefined as "any suit MegaCorp doesn't want to deal with."

CIGNA had no problems taking premiums (and they better be on time), just a problem with paying claims. They are only reacting the way any insurance company would. This is an especially serious problem in the health insurance context. Without wrongful death liability, all the carrier is contractually liable for is the cost of the procedures which are easily offset by avoiding the annual payments. Even if they lose, they win.

Edwards gets it; Clinton doesn't.

Andy K @ 42:

jack foster @ 18:

Andy K. My point, exactly. The oranges and apples fit perfectly here. I do expect to see a number of lawyers for the plaintifs on this one.

One other thought on why Geragos is involved:

Suppose you're in the same boat as the Sarkysians. You want to put pressure on the insurance company, asap. That's probably gonna take a whole bunch of PR as well as someone with some legal standing. But the PR must come first, 'cause there isn't gonna be any lawsuit for months or years.

Who's better, right now, in publicizin' his efforts than Geragos? And so what if he isn't a civil litigator- if he doesn't have any working with him at his firm, ya gotta believe that he knows a few good ones. In any case, Geragos wouldn't be the lawyer arguin' the civil case. But, once again, he'll get the case on the news- the national news, at that- before your loved one is dead.

Just sayin'...

After the OJ trial many people called Johnny Cochran all kinds of nasty things - "dirty," "sleazy," etc. He didn't mind cuz his firm made more money than ever before. People hate lawyers until the need one. When they need one, they don't want the nicest or most polite, they want the one who they think will win their case.

I should know, I are one.

Can I sue CIGNA for all the aguish I have had to go through reading these posts. It is absolutely heart wrenching.

Just having this argument/discussion is testament of the way the insurers have treated their policy holders over the years and years. Everybody knows they are capable of heartless money oriented decisions and that they make their decisions based on money 999 times out of 1000. They put themselves in this position. Whether their decisions was right of wrong, FUCK EM is what I say.

Lindy @ 60:

65% chance of living for 6 months. She was extremely likely to die, and very shortly, no matter what the doctors did. Most transplant centers won’t do a transplant unless the patient has a 50% chance of surviving for 5 years.

IMHO, that’s a tough call. How much is our society going to spend to give somebody another 6 months of life? If your answer is, like a lot of the posts here imply, “As much as we need to,” I’m not sure where the money’s going to come from.

Again, I've read nothing to suggest that this is what drove CIGNA's decision. (I've also read nothing to support the odds you're giving. But that's another story.)

Then you didn't bother to learn anything about the story. Start with the LA Times article.

As for what drove Cigna, assume the worst. It's still a heckuva tough call. Expend enormous resources to get somebody 6 months, maybe. How often do you think that happens? Honestly, do you have any idea how many people don't get transplants b/c they won't live more than a year, even if it's successful? My guess is no, or you wouldn't be so outraged about this case.

Che's Lounge @ 85:

Timmy,
If a liver transplant was not going to be successful, why was she listed in the first place and a donor found? Obviously, the medical staff felt that the transplant was indicated. It's not up to Cigna, or us, to decide this. That's just Bill Frist diagnosing by video. We cannot possibly know the details of Ms. Sarkisyan's condition. But the whole issue would never have come up if the medical team did not believe she would benefit from a transplant in the first place.

It depends on what you mean by "successful" or "beneficial." Almost every potential transplant would be "successful" in the sense that the patient is likely to live slightly longer than without the transplant. Far fewer are "successful" in the sense of significantly improving the long-term health outcomes of a patient.

The UCLA staff thought that the transplant would be successful in gaining the patient a 65% chance of living another 6 months of life. Is that a "benefit?" If it's me, than hell yeah. I want another 6 months. I'd fight like hell for another 6 days. That doesn't answer the question of whether I should get it.

If it were the CEO's daughter, she would have received a transplant. And don't try and tell me otherwise.

this story makes me sick...I wish I was a billionare and could have paid for the surgery myself. The scary part is these people have the money and the power to save lives and they'd rather not. I can only wonder what the millionare's at the top of CIGNA are going to use that money for. Gold shower curtain rod?

I've never seen Geragos win a case yet but he's good at settling for a deal.

I am not sold on this GERAGOS, wait and see. Here is my QUESTION where are all these very RELIGOUS people that believe in the BIBLE as the true word. I REMEMBER how they had CONGRESS to rush back and have a special sesion for TERRY SHIAVO, remeber the floor speachies by NOTED ELECTED REP:., like DR.FRIST, LIE-BERMAN and a few others, and then you have people like RUSS LINBAUGH, SHIVO was wall to wall news for weeks in all the NEWS PAPERS AND RADIO , and TV, on this(Cigna) NATALINE case not a peep even on some of sights like KOS, BUZZFLASH. Where is this story.

When I was getting the Ohio Entrepreneur's magazine a few years ago, it had a monthly article with such catchy talking points as

-Shared risk is Socialism

-Insurance companies have a right to make a profit on each and every customer, just like McDonalds

There was no understanding on their part that such "insurance" is overpriced at any price. If at most you are only gonna get back what you paid in, you might as well open a savings account.

Oh, and I'm fine with the idea that I might not get back what I pay in... its Insurance after all, which means shared risk!

capitalism in health business is immoral. Where are republican family values on this.

Danno @ 99:

Lollimom @ 63:

Danno @ 59:

...If your answer is, like a lot of the posts here imply, "As much as we need to," I'm not sure where the money's going to come from.

Iraq.

I sure wish some of you took the colossal costs of Iraq as seriously as you take the much smaller costs of healthcare. You work
in the insurance industry, don't you?

That would be a no.

I'm not sure what your point is. We can't afford the war in Iraq - if you haven't noticed, we're accruing massive deficits. Are you suggesting we should go into hock to fully fund health care?

God, this is getting old. Are you suggesting the USA should shut down until every penny is paid back?

Are you still paying Federal income taxes? If so, where the hell do you think that money is being spent? Here? At the EPA? At the FCC? New Orleans?

Try GE, Blackwater, Halliburton, Exxon, among many other in the military-industrial complex.

But you prefer to piss and moan here over healthcare costs.

snitramc @ 48:

There are lots of anti-federalized health care folks telling us if we lived in Canada, we'd die waiting for a transplant. Now it's happened here. So what is the difference? We still pay tons of money for our insurance, and Canadians don't. If I have to die waiting for an operation, I'd rather do it while saving money for my family.

The reports of the poor Canadian healthcare system are greatly exaggerated in your media. Case in point: My father is going in for a hip replacement in January - he's actually had this hip done previously, but he was unlucky enough to have contracted an infection in the area and the hip must be replaced.

That being said, he isn't waiting months for treatment - they decided he needed the surgery two weeks ago, and he himself postponed it until after Christmas. He could have gone in anytime and had it done prior. So no "months of waiting" in this case. We're obviously not talking an organ transplant here, but still, the way the US media makes things it, you'd think all Canadians do is sit around and wait to die.

Also: We aren't paying a cent for it. It's covered by our healthcare system. He has additional insurance from his previous employer that gives him little perks like a private room, etc ... but Dad can get his hip replaced at Christmas and not worry about how he's going to afford gifts for his grandkids.

Good read. Out of curiosity, why the ridiculous youtube video? I think this is slightly more serious that some poor video edits and the Saw theme song in the background. It was painful to watch not because of the situation but because of what the uploader did with it.

On to the meat of the article, the lawyer. I don't really know which lawyer to suggest, but after doing some research I don't think Geragos is going to produce many positive results. He seems to have been a flop in his recent cases and in such a high profile and critical case as this, I personally think the choice of a lawyer with some sort of ability to win cases would be crucial. Just my 2 cents

Anybody else notice the distinct absence of right wing "pro lifers" holding press conferences with Tom Delay and camping outside the building while she waited for a liver that never came? Oh wait! Liver transplant= $45,000 Abortion= $200...just needed to do the math I guess...

porcupine @ 23:

Rub R. D'Key @ 22:

Dear Porcupine,

How "outrageously expensive" is any life?

Outrageously expensive is if it deprives us of the resources to give basic childhood vaccines or prenatal care to thousands of needy citizens. We simply cannot afford to provide all things to all patients under our current system.

So we put up with not providing anything to anyone who isn't rich or famous? That's the current system. When celebs can jump to the top of long waiting lists for organs, or the uber rich can get anything they want, that's when you have a broken system.

Oh, by the way Porc, we can afford it and we don't on purpose. There's a little war going on that would have paid for full health coverage for the whole fucking country for a decade. Which was more important to the repugs? Any number of laws passed by congress turning health care into not for profit or a controlled profit industry would make things so fucking affordable it would make your head spin. Guess you don't use your head for thinking, often.

Mark Geragos should consider expanding this to a RICO suit/prosecution. for several reasons:

The case more than satisfies all minimum criteria for a RICO action,

What a great idea. Paul, I like the way you think.

I see we have armchair medical doctors, quick to over-rule what the UCLA doctors advised (to go with the transplant). Perhaps we should fire these UCLA doctors and put these armchair experts in their place? /sarcasm

geragos is going to crush them! cigna seriously deserves whatever they get out of this. the only thing worse is politicians from the other side of the country are going to use her as a tool for their own gain.

Fascist Nation @ 127:

Yes it is a tragedy whenever a young person dies, because it is highly unusual in the Western Hemisphere. But the only question I have is did her policy cover her?

If it did, it is murder. Along with breach of contract.

Yes, her policy covers liver transplant.

Joe Nobody @ 131:

Otherwise, a pencil-pusher decides what is best for you... err... his money.

In America there is no group we value more than pencil-pushers. We give them salaries up to 1,000 times as much as we pay our scientists and teachers.

another problem is we have an opt in organ donation system.
other countries make you actively retract permission for donation.
you can guess how this affects donation rates.
the grieving mind isn't entirely rational.
the us system does not account for human psychology.

is this responsible?
how many die because people do not donate?
how many of you are registered as organ donors?
cry about healthcaresystems/insurance companies all you want. the hands of many of "the people" are dirty as well. the indignant outrage over the lack of value a company gives a human life kind of feels a bit hollow when so many can't even be bothered to fill in an extra check box on their drivers license application.

fred tam @ 133:

its outrageously expensive if another person who may better survive can recieve that organ instead.
with long waiting lists i'm sure there was someone else.
as harsh as it is, its unethical to waste a scarce organ on a girl who is doomed. one focus's on this girl, but what of the other person who could use it and live a long time. what if they die if she wastes the organ they could have used? is it murder? one becomes too focused on one human story and forgets the rest which can be a danger.

to put that organ into that girl would be to set up a horrible catch 22 situation with the only outcome as prolonged death.
how anyone could justify such a thing i don't know.

The issue here is: when the medical experts decide who is most eligible to receive an organ, it is not the insurance company's right or expertise to over-ride their decision.

Porcupine said:

The chances of a liver transplant actually saving this girls life were low to the point of non-existant. It was ultimately the doctors at UCLA who decided not to do the procedure. This country cannot afford to do outrageously expensive medical procedures on everyone who wants or may need one while so many dont even get basic preventative health care.
We need to fix our system so that our health care money goes toward medical care and not to insurance company shareholders and hospital bureaucrats. Then doctors will be able to make reasonable decisions.

But here is what all 4 treating physicians said:

On Dec. 11, four leading physicians, including the surgical director of the Pediatric Liver Transplant Program at UCLA, wrote to CIGNA urging the company to reverse its denial. The physicians said that Nataline “currently meets criteria to be listed as Status 1A” for a transplant. They also challenged CIGNA’s denial which the company said occurred because their benefit plan “does not cover experimental, investigational and unproven services,” to which the doctors replied, “Nataline’s case is in fact none of the above.”

“So what happened between December 11, when CIGNA denied the transplant, and December 20 when they approved? A huge outpouring of protest and CIGNA’s public humiliation. Why didn’t they just listen to the medical professionals at the bedside in the first place?” asked Geri Jenkins, RN, a member of the CNA/NNOC Council of Presidents who works in a transplant unit at the University of California San Diego Medical Center.

But the sickest part of all was that CIGNA initially denied the procedure on the grounds that it was not medically necessary. Hello you cannot live without a liver so it certainly was medically necessary.