The Washington Times is reporting that carriers are now (allegedly) denying life-saving treatment to folks who live in states that have approved assisted suicide:
"A Nevada physician says insurance companies in states where assisted suicide is legal have refused to cover expensive, life-saving treatments for his patients but have offered to help them end their lives instead."
Well first, this is hardly news; regular IB readers have known about this since last fall:
"One young mother says her insurance company denied her coverage for chemotherapy treatment after originally agreeing to provide the fiscal support for it, but indicated it would be willing to pay for assisted suicide instead."
This was in Oregon, one of the states cited in the WT article.
Second, I question why the folks in Nevada want to transfer their patients to other states, especially knowing that they've approved assisted suicide. Seems like almost every other state would offer a better path, no?
And I don't get this: the Patients Rights Action Fund(?) has released a video purporting to prove that carriers just care about the bottom line, not saving lives.
Here's a news flash, PRAF: of course they do. Insurance is a business, and its stakeholders expect a return on their investment. As long as what they do (or don't do) is legal and aboveboard, then that's the extent of their obligation. Do carriers do stupid things? Of course they do (we have a long-running series on Stupid Carrier Tricks).
But this doesn't seem to be one.
[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]
"A Nevada physician says insurance companies in states where assisted suicide is legal have refused to cover expensive, life-saving treatments for his patients but have offered to help them end their lives instead."
Well first, this is hardly news; regular IB readers have known about this since last fall:
"One young mother says her insurance company denied her coverage for chemotherapy treatment after originally agreeing to provide the fiscal support for it, but indicated it would be willing to pay for assisted suicide instead."
This was in Oregon, one of the states cited in the WT article.
Second, I question why the folks in Nevada want to transfer their patients to other states, especially knowing that they've approved assisted suicide. Seems like almost every other state would offer a better path, no?
And I don't get this: the Patients Rights Action Fund(?) has released a video purporting to prove that carriers just care about the bottom line, not saving lives.
Here's a news flash, PRAF: of course they do. Insurance is a business, and its stakeholders expect a return on their investment. As long as what they do (or don't do) is legal and aboveboard, then that's the extent of their obligation. Do carriers do stupid things? Of course they do (we have a long-running series on Stupid Carrier Tricks).
But this doesn't seem to be one.
[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]
Posts
