Archive for category Insurance

B.C. sues balloon-crash pilot for medical costs

CBC News, AP, 3 September 2010

“The B.C. government is using a new piece of legislation that allows it to recover medical expenses to sue the pilot and others involved in a fiery balloon crash that killed two people and injured several others.   The government claims Pennock didn’t maintain the balloon, didn’t do safety checks and wasn’t properly trained to fly. The company that manufactured the balloon, meanwhile, is alleged to have produced a “dangerous and defective product,” and the government is alleged to have not conducted the proper inspections.”

Find article here.

Even with malpractice insurance, doctors opt for expensive, defensive medicine

Washington Post- 31 August, 2010

Author:  Manoj Jain

“The malpractice system is a stick that reminds wayward doctors and hospitals that health care is about patients. It helps keep the arrogance, negligence, mismanagement and greed of some doctors and hospitals in check. So how can we improve the malpractice system? There is no easy solution.”

Read article here.

Health Insurance Politics in Federal Court

NEJM, online, August 25, 2010
Authors: Wendy K. Mariner, and George J. Annas
“Having been outmaneuvered in Congress with the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Affordable Care Act,” or ACA), Republicans have taken their case to federal court, arguing that the law’s key provision, the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional. This argument has been made most prominently by attorneys general from 20 states in a Florida federal court and by the Commonwealth of Virginia in a Virginia federal court. In early August, federal district court judge Henry Hudson decided that the Virginia challenge deserves a hearing, thereby giving the constitutional argument an aura of respectability and ensuring that we’ll hear more about the meaning of states’ rights in the context of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (which grants Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce), both in court and on the campaign trail.”
Find article here.

Doctors question high price of cancer drug Herceptin

The Guardian, By Sarah Boseley, 20 August 2010

“Doctors today voiced unease over the high cost of a new drug treatment for stomach cancer, which can prolong lives by a few weeks but will be unaffordable in some of the countries where the trials took place. In the Lancet, they also question the extent to which the marketing interests of wealthy pharmaceutical companies dominate the direction of medical research.”

Find article here.

Doctors’ ratings get an incomplete grade

Los Angeles Times-16 August, 2010

Author: Michelle Andrews, Kaiser Health News

As insurers and employers try to hold down healthcare costs, steering patients toward doctors and other providers who provide the best care for the money is an important priority. Some of the measures that matter most to consumers aren’t included in many rating systems, experts say.”

Read article here.

IVF cost keeping couples away

ABC News, AP, 13 August 2010

“A Sydney IVF doctor says more than 1,000 fewer babies will be born because IVF treatment has become more expensive. Sydney IVF medical director Mark Bowman says the cost of treatment has not gone up, but the Medicare rebate is significantly less after law changes in January this year.”

Find article here.

Unjustified Discrimination: Is the Moratorium on the use of Genetic Test Results by Insurers a Contradiction in Terms?

Health Care Analysis, Volume 18, Number 3, 279-293, DOI: 10.1007/s10728-009-0137-9
Author: Ruth Wilkinson
“This paper considers the legal position of genetic test results in insurance law in England and Wales. The strict position is that this information is material to the decision of the insurer to offer insurance cover and should be disclosed by insurance applicants. However, the British Government and the Association of British Insurers have agreed to a moratorium on the use of genetic test results in insurance, which will run until 2014. The moratorium prohibits unfavourable treatment of insurance clients on their basis of their genetics, unless it can be justified. In this paper, I consider the notion of genetic discrimination and ask whether it is possible to justify the concept in such a way that its existence should be accepted.”
Find abstract here.

Hit by economy, patients can’t buy life-saving meds

CNN Health, AP, 6 August 2010

“Cancer patients might not be able to buy life-saving drugs because of the economic downturn, doctors warn. Two University of California, San Francisco doctors wrote a letter to The New England Journal of Medicine, describing what they had seen in their practice. Three of their cancer patients had been able to keep their rare stomach cancers at bay by taking a life-saving drug known as imatinib. Imatinib is effective in stopping the spread of the metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor, but it also costs $4,500 a month.”

Find article here.

Truth and Consequences — Insurance-Premium Rate Regulation and the ACA

NEJM, online first, 21 July, 2010
Authors: Ann Mills, Carolyn L. Engelhard, Patricia M. Tereskerz
“Over the past decade, the largest health insurance companies have seen a disproportionate increase in profits of 250%, or 10 times the rate of inflation. During the past year alone, there has been a double-digit increase in health insurance premiums. In response to such increases, the new health care reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (”Affordable Care Act,” or ACA), requires the secretary of health and human services, along with individual states, to establish a process for the annual review of unreasonable increases in health insurance premiums. As a result of the new statutory language, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and all relevant states will now review proposed premium increases, and health insurers will be required to justify any increases that these authorities consider unreasonable.”
Find article here.

Walking the Tightrope of Health Insurance Reform between 2010 and 2014

NEJM, online first, 21 July 2010
Authors: Christopher C. Jennings, and Katherine J. Hayes
“Both political parties wax poetic about the need for popular insurance reforms, but legislating what is necessary and implementing it properly has always been the trick. …Philosophically, the political extremes could not differ more in their views of the correct approach. Americans on the far left believe in aggressive regulation of private insurance to guarantee access and limit profit. In their view, if regulation drove insurers with high profits or skimpy benefits out of the marketplace, consumers would be better served — even if it meant fewer plan choices and some disruption early in the process. Those on the far right believe that regulation of private insurance should be limited and consumers should face financial incentives and penalties to encourage healthy lifestyle choices and cost-effective health care decisions. In their view, if less regulation promotes innovation and choice at the cost of some discrimination, so be it.”
Find article here.