Did you hear about the greedy insurance company that refused to pay for a liver transplant? Seems CIGNA Insurance Company initially refused to cover the cost of the transplant for 17-year-old Natalee Sarkisian, saying the surgery was too experimental. A liver transplant Experimental in 2007? Despite doctors urging the insurance company to reconsider CIGNA wouldn't budge. So yesterday (Thursday 12/20/07) protesters gathered outside the company's Glendale, CA office to protest. During which the company called to tell the mother that they had changed their minds. However, the decision was to late. Her condition worsened and she was taken off life support within hours of the decision reversal.
I am glad that I don't have this insurance company. If I did, I would strongly consider dumping them. It appears that they don't really care about their customers, despite the claim that their hearts are with the family. Sounds to me their hearts are with their wallets.
Simply put they suck!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1942702/postshttp://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5278599&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
http://cbs2.com/local/nataline.sarkisyan.CIGNA.2.615167.html
I am not defending the insurance company but please get your facts together. This is not a straight-forward case of someone needing a liver transplant. This young woman had just had a stem-cell transplant and, as can happen, her liver failed from something called "veno-occlusive disease". The conditioning chemotherapy and radiation for the transplant likely did severe damage to her other systems as well, so it's not so easy to just say "Give her a new liver and she'll be fine" That's not the case at all. Did she need a new liver? Of course. Was there any medical proof that this would be a long-term solution? No. That's what Cigna based their decision on. Think about it this way: if you needed a liver transplant (and had an otherwise OK medical history) vs. this young girl, who would get the next liver? You would--because it would have gone to better use in an otherwise healthy patient, rather than a last ditch "feel good" effort for someone who would very likely not survive.
ReplyDelete