The United
States has a worldwide reputation for litigiousness. And it seems like just
about everyone the world over is familiar with that anecdote about the woman
who won millions after suing McDonalds because their coffee was too hot. (Never
mind that coffee is expected to be hot as molten lava.)
But there’s
one thing we never see in our notoriously litigious country: Patients and their
families suing their health insurance companies over their profit-driven
decisions to deny potentially life-saving treatments.
That is, we
never used to, until a recent case turned that notion on its’ head.
Recently, a
jury in Oklahoma City ordered insurance giant Aetna to pay $25 million to the
family of Orrana Cunningham, an Aetna customer who died of cancer after the
company refused to cover radiation therapy. “The jury ruled that Aetna
recklessly disregarded its duty to deal fairly and in good faith with
Cunningham,” according to a Nov. 10 article by the Associated Press.
Cunningham
was diagnosed with Stage 4 nasopharyngeal cancer, a rare type of head and neck
cancer that starts in the upper reaches of the throat. Her physicians
prescribed proton beam therapy, a form of radiation that would attack the tumor
accurately enough to reduce her risk of serious complications, such as
blindness.
The
treatment had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and was covered
by Medicare. However, Aetna declined to
cover it, after three separate medical directors alleged this treatment was
“experimental.” To save the love of his life, Orrana’s husband of 28 years, Ron
Cunningham, a retired Oklahoma City firefighter, mortgaged their home and set
up a GoFundMe page to raise the $92,082.19 needed to pay for the treatment. But
it was too late. Before the family raised that prodigious sum, Orrana
Cunningham died of a viral brain infection on May 30, 2015.
But before
passing away, Orrana filed suit against Aetna for “bad faith,” as part of her
fruitless attempt to force the insurer’s hand. After her death, Ron decided to proceed
with the suit, taking Aetna to court.
At trial, all
three medical directors acknowledged they’d spent more time preparing for the
lawsuit than they had on the decision to deny Ms. Cunningham’s life-saving
medical treatment. Still, Aetna’s attorney, John Shely, thanked the medical
directors personally for denying Orrana’s coverage and in closing arguments,
went so far as to say he was proud of their decision.
While Aetna
has vowed to appeal the ruling, Ron Cunningham’s attorney, Doug Terry, said he
hoped the case would prove a watershed. “We believe this case pulled the
curtain back on what goes on at a health insurance company when claims are
being denied,” he told reporters.
One can only
hope, as, tragically, Orrana Cunningham’s case is anything but unusual.
Insurers in
the U.S. deny coverage for life-saving treatments on a daily basis, and our
legislation doesn’t hold the insurance companies or their medical directors -- those
who make the ultimate decision after coverage denials are appealed--accountable.
Take any
run-of-the-mill practicing physician like me, for example. If an improper medical
decision on my part results in the death of my patient, I could have my medical
license suspended or even revoked – not to mention facing the possibility of a
malpractice suit.
Ironically,
medical directors at insurance companies ––almost invariably licensed medical
doctors -- face no consequences when their poor medical decisions harm or even
kill patients. It may seem like common sense that physicians employed by
insurance companies should be charged with unprofessional conduct when the
medical decisions they make fail to meet the standard of care, but the fact is
they rarely, if ever, are.
That’s
because, unfortunately, health insurers fall outside the jurisdiction of state
Medical Boards and are overseen by the Office of Insurance Commissioner (OIC) in
each state, an entity with more bark than bite.
Last year, California's
Office of the Insurance Commissioner launched an investigation on Aetna after
learning their former medical director, Dr. Jay Iinuma, admitted under oath that
he never reviewed patients’ medical records when deciding to approve or deny
care for patients. Despite the outrageous
admission by the medical director, California signed off on the Aetna-CVS
merger last week, meaning there will be little more than a slap on the wrist
for Aetna or their employed physician.
Insurance
companies and the paper-pushing physicians in their employ have a clear
conflict of interest: They’re job is to watch out for the company’s bottom line
by signing off on the denial of costly treatments, regardless of whether those
treatments could save patients’ – their customers’
- lives.
Hopefully,
the stunning Orrana Cunningham decision has put us on a path toward increased
insurer accountability. With Aetna’s $69 billion megamerger with pharmacy giant
CVS Health expected any day now, the stakes have never been higher.
I understand why Pharmacy big box chains want to eliminate the middle man(PBMs). However, acting as your own PBM is a greedy move and merging with US Health insurers is a Conflict of Interest. Cannot imagine how FTC and State Pharmacy Boards are approving these mergers.
ReplyDelete