WellPoint's Reuters Response (breast cancer rescissions)

P R Newswire ^ | April 22, 2010 | WELLPOINT INC.

[Brad from Tennessee]

NDIANAPOLIS, April 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Today, WellPoint, Inc. (NYSE: WLP) issued the following points of clarification in response to the Reuters article published this morning.

* Today's Reuters story alleging that WellPoint employs a targeted rescission policy for members with breast cancer is inaccurate and grossly misleading. The story incorrectly reports that WellPoint singles out women with breast cancer for aggressive investigation with the intent of canceling their insurance. This is simply wrong. In fact, WellPoint works to prevent breast cancer, to detect it early, and to get our members into treatment. We also work to ensure that all of our members are getting best practice care for breast cancer.

* In fact, last year less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our individual members' policies were rescinded.

*Another significant error in the Reuters story is that WellPoint rescinded coverage to Robin Beaton. As noted during her public testimony during the US House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, Ms. Beaton is NOT a WellPoint member, but rather was insured by another company.

[Brad from Tennessee]

This is WellPoint's response to a REUTERS article cited in attacks by Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy Pelosi over allegations that the health insurer dropped clients who developed breast cancer. Like the "racism" scam Democrats have fabricated to counter ObamaCare critics, this smells like another manufactured "crisis."

[JoSixChip]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good agenda driven article. That’s reuters motto. The media in this country is a disgrace.

[jazzlite]

If these statements are proven to be such lies, why are these politicians not prosecuted?

[Brad from Tennessee]

[If these statements are proven to be such lies, why are these politicians not prosecuted?]

They’re not under oath.

[maica]

Another significant error in the Reuters story is that WellPoint rescinded coverage to Robin Beaton. As noted during her public testimony during the US House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, Ms. Beaton is NOT a WellPoint member, but rather was insured by another company.

Did "reporters" and/or "editors" get the facts wrong, or did the Congressional hearing not even get the facts straight regarding the insurance of the cited women? This seems to be just another showtrial brought to the public's attention by our elected "representatives."

[Brad from Tennessee]

This is the MSNBC version posted last night:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2499358/posts

[Nachum]

The list, ping

[kcvl]

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf

Robin Beaton, testified before Congress explaining “the sad thing is Blue Cross gladly took my high premiums and the first time I filed a claim and was suspected of having cancer they searched high and low for a reason to cancel me”

******

Obama Administration Calls on WellPoint To Stop Targeting Breast Cancer Patients

Obama told the story of a woman named Robin Beaton out of Texas, who was dropped from her health insurance just before she was to have a double mastectomy, because of what Obama said was her forgetting to declare a case of acne! Well, that is not necessarily the case.

Yes, Robin Beaton did lose her health insurance right before she was to have a double mastectomy. Acne, however, had nothing to do with it. Turns out, that Robin Beaton had a previous heart condition that she neglected to inform the insurance provider of. She also gave them her weight, incorrectly. The insurance company got wind of this and opened an investigation into Beaton right before her surgery, thus delaying her from having it, and they ultimately dropped her. What Obama also failed to mention though was that Beaton’s Congressman, Joe Barton (R), fought for and got her the insurance back, which allowed her to have the surgery.

[Brad from Tennessee]

Thanks.

Many hospitals and surgeons would have gone ahead with the treatment, billed the patient, then ultimately written off the expense.

[SarahW]

Beaton had a non-signifigant, transient elevated heart rate. It was deemed unimportant by her physician as well.
Furthermore.It had nothing to do with her contraction of breast cancer, and even if you wished to consider this some sort of “fraud” , it would have had no effect on her premiums and would not have indicated a risk for breast cancer;
The weight guesstimate made is also not fraud, not significant, and would not have prevented them from covering her in the first place, and was always subject to change after she began paying premiums.

Recission on a pretext, when there is no clear fraud, for a completely irrelevant condition, to prevent paying for a completely unrelated condition is unethical in my view.

I can see an insurer refusing to pay a claim within an exclusion period, if a conditions actively concealed becomes manifest, or when fraud affecting future claims is detected which would have mattered at the time of joining the policy.