Health Insurer Targets HIV Patients To Drop Them
Our very own Murray Waas broke the story:
In May, 2002, Jerome Mitchell, a 17-year old college freshman from rural South Carolina, learned he had contracted HIV. The news, of course, was devastating, but Mitchell believed that he had one thing going for him: On his own initiative, in anticipation of his first year in college, he had purchased his own health insurance.
Shortly after his diagnosis, however, his insurance company, Fortis, revoked his policy. Mitchell was told that without further treatment his HIV would become full-blown AIDS within a year or two and he would most likely die within two years after that.
So he hired an attorney -- not because he wanted to sue anyone; on the contrary, the shy African-American teenager expected his insurance was canceled by mistake and would be reinstated once he set the company straight.
But Fortis, now known as Assurant Health, ignored his attorney's letters, as they had earlier inquiries from a case worker at a local clinic who was helping him. So Mitchell sued.
In 2004, a jury in Florence County, South Carolina, ordered Assurant Health, part of Assurant Inc, to pay Mitchell $15 million for wrongly revoking his heath insurance policy. In September 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the lower court's verdict, although the court reduced the amount to be paid him to $10 million.
By winning the verdict against Fortis, Mitchell not only obtained a measure of justice for himself; he also helped expose wrongdoing on the part of Fortis that could have repercussions for the entire health insurance industry.
It turned out that Fortis/Assurant had a policy of targeting every customer with an HIV diagnosis for a fraud investigation where the company would search for any pretext to drop the policy.
Rescission--or the practice of dropping insurance policies at the time when customers need them, namely, when they become ill--is widespread and insurance companies are unapologetic for doing so.
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.
It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.
Nevertheless, the judges involved in this case called Assurant/Fortis' actions in targeting specifically HIV patients "reprehensible." It is also a policy that will end with the health care reform bill.
Interesting how the right-wing of America coined the best phrase to describe policies used by insurance companies they are trying to defend with their obstruction of HCR.
Fortis is actually known as a company who only insures healthy people. I was turned down by them for private insurance because I had a history of mild asthma. The discovery came in a phone interview and the rejection was instantaneous.
This was about 5 years ago.
What you are referring to is Insurance denial, a common and legal practice among health insurance companies. What Assurant did to Jerome is something called rescission, which is much more scandalous because it often targets the very sick and unfairly cancels a policy it had already approved. You can read more about rescission here.
"It is also a policy that will end with the health care reform bill."
Long overdue and sorely needed.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
2014?
Sec. 2746 Opportunity For Independent External Third Party Review in Cases of Recission.
This section spells out when it's o.k. for the insurance co. to drop you, and it's at the descretion of the commissioner as to whether it's alright (or not).
This also applies to rate increases, geographical rate increases, and whether or not you can afford, Sec. 203: a Basic Plan, Optional offering of Enhanced Plan, or Optional offering of Premium Plan.
I'm guessing if you had the discretionary income to afford a Premium Plan that asthma might be covered, maybe not. However, insurance companys are only mandated to offer a Basic Plan. So, if they make the most money on a basic plan they don't have to offer anything better. And if your dropped, you have the "opportunity" to tell someone about it.
Black people must leave, NJ Walmart announcer says
Just more signs of the times.
Oh yes...F**K Fortis/Assurant and ALL insurance.
WalMart is claiming they don't know who did it or how it happened.
The truth is that you can access the PA from any in-store phone; all you need is the correct sequence, which is apparently readily available on the web.
Mike Hunt.
Cue the Kabuki....
Al Coholic
Oliver Klozoff
I.P. Freely
Jacques Strap
Seymour Butz
Homer Sexual
Mike Rotch
Hugh Jass
Bea O'Problem
Ivana Tinkle
Ura Snotball
Heywood U. Kuddulmee
Ahmed Adoudi
Ima Weiner
Maya Normusbutt
Heard one the other day,
Kraven Moorehead
Hugh Jardon
Amanda Huggenkiss
Anita Bath
Anita Man
Maya Buttreeks
Ollie Tabooger
We are now going to be forced to give money to.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
Many right wingers still call HIV/AIDS 'the queer disease', and think only gays have AIDS- so given their tendency to hate gays and desire to see all gays dead, the righties would want coverage dropped for anyone and everyone with AIDS. Of course AIDS touches people of all ages, genders and sexual preferences- but tell that to a tralier trash right winger......
Try telling anything to a trailer trash right-winger. You can't fix stupid. Too bad for the country we can't ignore it either.
You of all people, using the word "preferences"?
Why not "persuasions"? That's just as valid...NOT.
Both are RW memes...which shocks me that you are using them.
No offense.
Heterosexually Challenged?
You're right...too often we on the left use loaded words invented by the right...Rachel maddow and Keith Olbermann have made the same blunders..
passage of the health"care" bill. Insurers are still allowed to rescind. All they have to do is claim that the insurance application was fraudulent. Then they can rescind. Watch...insurance fraud will suddenly be the hot pressing issue on FOX.
does it surprise anyone that the insurance-friendly bill will allow the practice of rescission to continue.
"will stop insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact" sounds like a cash cow for insurance industry lawyers and their bosses, to the detriment of the public
... but not for the reason you would think.
Do you happen to know which EMR (electronic medical record) system your doctors use? If they're using a system which is based off-site, there's every possibility that their vendor could be culling information to sell to insurance companies. Inside medical information is as good as gold to those vultures.
Single payer, anyone? :(
single payer is the only way to go - except that the corporate congresmen would never allow us to harm the medical insruance fraud that we have now - so the only answer is New Representatives.
Except most people in this country don't care enough to do anything about it. - we will continue to try and hopefully people will get fed up enough to stand and be counted. But for now, they just don't care.
...there's every possibility that their vendor could be committing a crime by culling information to sell to insurance companies, who, if they used illegally obtained, confidential medical records to rescind coverage, would face penalties that would make them wish they'd just paid out the claims in the first place?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
I've been reading the bill this morning and haven't gotten to the part on electronic medical record access - but I'm sure it's in there.
As far as rescission goes, you can still be dropped for whatever reason, it's up to a "third party" panel to determine if the company was justified or not.
And the part on IRS Penalties, what is that, 24pt. type?
Doesn't matter though, it's passing, and it will take a bill at least as long as this one to fix it.
and wait another 40 years.
This must be why the wrongwingers, the insurance companies and Catholic Bishops love this bill so much! [/snark]
Looking at this, and the part of employers paying fines of minimum 10% of their costs (whatever that is) up to 500K for "unintentional failures" to comply. Yes, that's right, make an honest mistake and fork over an additional 10%. Makes me all warm and gushy for this bill.
Why not check out the IRS penalties for individuals while your at it and fill me in.
The reason I bag on this is because what could have been accomplished, and by the presidents own words.
Now go ahead and tell me I'm not realistic, I'll save you the time. You know what's unrealistic, putting something so hopelessly convoluted together when something much simplier, easier, cost effective and already Established would have been the way to go.
But you know, that's just me standing in the way of reform.
The Faux News idiot didn't want to let Obama answer because those answer make sense and the American people (even a lot of Faux viewers) can understand it and would probably support what he is talking about. Well, Faux Fair and Balanced News isn't going to have any of that! - just keep talking over him so you can make it look like he couldn't answer your dumb ass questions.
Oh how I hate these conservo-bot-assholes!
There is no such thing as sexual 'preference'. You are born the way you are...It is scary how right wingers can define vocabulary, and we on the left start using such words and terms- i just did it, I've seen Rachel maddow use the term 'abortion doctors', etc, etc
And that link takes us to an LA Times article that mentions rescission once [emphasis mine]:
"[P]rotections from policy rescissions" are not the same as the elimination of policy rescissions.
According to Michael Moore, if the company is willing to pay the $100 a day fine, they are free to make the rescission.
So, once again, the insurance companies will apply the simple calculus of "which is cheaper" - paying for treatment or paying the fine.
All perfectly legal.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
.
Sounds like a research project!
Get to work!
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
.
Deliberatly targetting seriously ill people to deny them health care?
What kind of person could do this job? How could you carry on? It really baffles me. The only explanation I can see is that they are psychopathic or sociopathic personalities.
On the turning away
From the pale and downtrodden
And the words they say
Which we won't understand
"Don't accept that what's happening
Is just a case of others' suffering
Or you'll find that you're joining in
The turning away"
It's a sin that somehow
Light is changing to shadow
And casting it's shroud
Over all we have known
Unaware how the ranks have grown
Driven on by a heart of stone
We could find that we're all alone
In the dream of the proud
On the wings of the night
As the daytime is stirring
Where the speechless unite
In a silent accord
Using words you will find are strange
And mesmerised as they light the flame
Feel the new wind of change
On the wings of the night
No more turning away
From the weak and the weary
No more turning away
From the coldness inside
Just a world that we all must share
It's not enough just to stand and stare
Is it only a dream that there'll be
No more turning away?
when the insurance companies drop you as soon as you get sick. Might as well save the premiums you pay. "Best healthcare system in the world"? Not even close. The U.S. has one of the worst systems.
Republicans are liars and simply cannot be trusted.
Comments are closed on this entry