CIGNA: The Heartless Company, the Shame of Philadelphia
When insurance company officials arbitrarily denied a California patient life-preserving care recommended by her doctor, the case provoked outrage and inspired the hope that medical coverage for all citizens can eventually become law.
[snip]Sarkisyan had battled leukemia for three years and had received a bone marrow transplant from her brother the day before Thanksgiving. In response to complications, her liver ceased to function and her team of doctors at the University of California at Los Angeles Medical Center recommended she receive a liver transplant in order to prolong her life. A candidate organ became available but could not be implanted because insurer CIGNA ruled that the procedure was experimental and was not covered under Nataline’s mother’s policy
In response, the surgical director of UCLA’s Pediatric Liver Transplant Program and other leading transplant physicians called on CIGNA to reverse its decision, noting that the planned procedure was not experimental and that a majority of patients in her situation would have a 65 percent chance of surviving at least six months.
Read the rest: CIGNA killed a kid for profit. They are headquartered here in Philadelphia to the shame of decent citizens.
A CIGNA spokeswoman defended the company’s initial denial, pointing out that it submits transplant requests to physicians with transplant expertise. However, she had no convincing explanation for why the company changed its mind after becoming the target of public ire. According to CIGNA, it made a one-time exception in a rare and unusual case. The attorney for the Sarkisyan family, Mark Geragos, accused the insurer of cynically changing course because of public opinion and the fact that company officials knew the girl was dying, so they wouldn’t have to pay for a procedure, anyway. He promised a civil lawsuit and called on prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against CIGNA.
That sounds about right. And according to Susie, the family may have a case:
Geragos said he suspected Cigna addressed its memo to employees, rather than the public, because of employee unrest. He said he had been inundated with e-mails from current and former Cigna workers who say it was part of their corporate culture to deny expensive claims.
“Inundated”. Sucks to be you CIGNA: even if the case doesn’t go forward, your reputation just took a dive, killers.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
