Profits vs. Patients
In the wake of recent damning testimony and reports outlining the tactics used by insurance companies to bolster bottom lines, The New York Times today takes a
Jul 31, 2020830 Shares414.7K Views
In the wake of recent damning testimony and reportsoutlining the tactics used by insurance companies to bolster bottom lines, The New York Times todaytakes a swipe at the industry, arguing that its propensity to drop sick patients rather than take on expensive claims — a practice called rescission — is reason enough to create a government-backed plan to compete with private companies.
“„The companies contend that rescissions are rare. But Congressional investigators found that three big insurers canceled about 20,000 individual policies over a five-year period — allowing them to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims.
“„The companies typically argue that the policyholders withheld information about pre-existing conditions that would have disqualified them from coverage. But the [House oversight] subcommittee unearthed cases where the pre-existing conditions were trivial, or unrelated to the claim, or not known to the patient. When executives for the three companies were asked if they would be willing to limit rescissions to cases where the policyholder deliberately lied on an application form, all said they would not. This tactic will not be ended voluntarily.
Pretty difficult to reach the goal-line of universal coverage if the insurers see no problem dropping patients for the sake of profits.
Hajra Shannon
Reviewer
Latest Articles
Popular Articles