Consumer Watchdog to Congress: Put Patients' Bill of Rights Back on the TablePublished: 2009-06-24 16:00:39Author: Consumer Watchdog | June 4, 2009
WASHINGTON, June 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As the nation's health insurance companies met in San Diego, Californiato discuss how to "make health care reform a reality," Consumer
Watchdog called on Congressional leaders to include key patient
protections and legal accountability measures for health insurers and
HMOs currently missing from the debate.
Consumer Watchdog
called for specific legislative fixes and separate public hearings to
address 10 patient abuses not sufficiently addressed in the current
House and Senate health care reform proposals. Abuses detailed below.
Download the letter here: http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/resources/PatientsBillofRightsHouseSenate.pdf
In the letter Consumer Watchdog wrote:
"Ten
years ago, many in Congress, including most of you, supported a
comprehensive 'Patient Bill of Rights' that was ultimately killed by
health insurance lobbying. The measures would have protected patients
against the worst insurance industry abuses and included strong legal
accountability for insurers. The proposals now offered by the House and
Senate make the need for such rights more critical than ever, yet
outlines of the pending proposals fail to mention the HMO Patient Bill
of Rights measures at all.
"Both the House and the Senate
recently debuted plans requiring all Americans to show proof that they
own a health insurance plan or be treated as criminals -- tax cheats
facing thousands of dollars in fines. Yet the proposals fail to make
insurers accountable for their actions. Nor do the Congressional plans
cap what insurers can charge in monthly premiums or how much Americans
would have to pay out-of-pocket, and do little to curb the most common
abuses, particularly delay and denial of care.
"Have we
forgotten what the HMO and health insurance industry is capable of?
Congress' plan to require Americans to buy health insurance policies or
face tax fines would further cede control of our health care system to
an industry that has demonstrated that it will stop at nothing --
including killing its customers -- to make a profit."
The top 10 problems plaguing health care consumers that are not adequately addressed by the House and Senate plans are:
- Killing patients with fine print.
Health insurers have bankrupted and killed patients with the fine print
of health insurance contracts. A consistent theme of the industry's
anti-consumer arsenal has been the use of incomprehensibly technical
language buried in insurance contracts to refuse needed care when care
is needed most. Case in point: insurance companies now commonly refuse
to cover certain proven treatments for autistic children by redefining
them as "education." Delays of such care during crucial periods of
early development mean autistic children may never improve to their
full potential. They also seize on "pre-authorization" and proper
"coding" requirements to block care. The lack of legal accountability
and financial consequence for insurers that refuse to honor promises to
pay for health care encourages this practice. (See point 8 below).
- No definition of "medical necessity" and "experimental treatment." HMOs
make false claims that doctor-recommended care is not "medically
necessary" or is "experimental" in order to deny care that is too
expensive. Though state laws provide factors for determining whether
care is truly medically necessary or experimental, there are no
effective financial consequences for such denials by false
classification. As a result, insurance companies commonly use this
tactic to dodge necessary and legally required treatments. (See point 8
below).
- Delays of medical care. HMOs consistently
delay care, tangling a request in bureaucracy, as another way of
denying care -- making patients wait so long that the requested
treatment is no longer viable. Despite state independent medical review
laws that can theoretically remedy denials, the lack of financial
consequences for delay in most circumstances encourages this practice
to continue. (See point 8 below).
- Junk insurance. Far
too often, patients find that their health insurance policies are not
worth the paper they are printed on. Junk insurance policies that are
often sold to individuals do not adequately cap out-of-pocket costs
(copays and deductibles) and some even put dollar caps on certain
treatments. Also increasingly common are very high deductible polices,
which require patients to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket before
coverage kicks in. All of these are really insurance for health
insurers because companies know that cash-strapped Americans will not
be able to afford to go to the doctor even if they can pay the monthly
premium. For example, Dana Christensen of Californiaand her husband Doug bought a policy that promised unlimited
chemotherapy coverage. Only after Doug got cancer did the Christensen's
discover that their insurance policy limited chemotherapy coverage to $1,000 per day. Chemotherapy commonly costs $17,000 or more a day. Dana was left with $450,000 in unpaid medical bills when Doug died.
- Manipulating "risk."Not only do health insurance companies and HMOs use their internal
rules for assessing risk -- called "medical underwriting" guidelines --
to refuse coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, even minor
health issues like allergies, acne, and asthma, but also to charge
higher rates to applicants with those conditions. Though the plan
envisioned by the House and Senate would bar insurers from refusing to
sell coverage based on an applicant's health history, it is unclear to
what extent companies will be allowed to continue to underwrite. Under
the Senate plan, Americans with minor health conditions may be forced
into the lowest tier insurance policies, which will carry the highest
out-of-pocket costs and more limits on benefits. This scenario was a
feature of the failed California effort in 2007-08 to mandate health insurance.
- Dumping the sick. Postclaims
underwriting includes the current practice of insurers waiting until
someone gets sick with an expensive-to-treat illness to then go back
and seek a reason to cancel the policy. Presumably, companies could not
leave patients uninsured after a major illness under the plan
envisioned by the Congress, but nothing in House or Senate documents
bars an insurer from transferring a sick patient into the
lowest-benefit policies. As more sick people dominate such policy
categories -- called "risk bands" -- the policies available to them
become more and more expensive. Ultimately fewer people can afford them
and lose their policies or are forced into ineffective coverage (see
"junk insurance" above). In the industry this process is called the
"death spiral." Other more mundane postclaims underwriting -- for
example, raising premiums or out-of-pocket costs after a patient gets
sick -- also effectively block access to care and are not barred under
the House and Senate plans. The lack of legal accountability and
financial consequence for insurers that dump patients, or price them
out of policies, when they get sick encourages this practice. (See
point 8 below).
- No accountability. For patients who
receive health coverage through a private employer, HMOs and health
insurers face no financial consequences for mishandling claims. The
Supreme Court decision in Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux stated that
"state common law causes of action arising from the improper processing
of a claim are preempted." Under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Pilot Life decision, lawsuits are removed
to federal court where victims can only recover the cost of the
procedure or service denied in the first place -- no damages or
penalties are allowed. As a result, HMOs and insurers are largely free
to deny access to care without fear of reprisal or financial
consequences. Any health care overhaul should overturn Pilot Life and
restore the reach of state common law.
- Refusing access to expensive doctor recommended medications and devices.
HMOs and insurers often refuse to authorize and pay for "off-label" use
of expensive medications used to save cancer patients even though there
is substantial evidence of their efficacy. For example insurers have
routinely denied the use of Avastin for ovarian cancer even though it
has been proven highly effective. State-of-the-art prosthetic devices
are routinely denied as not "medically necessary." The lack of
financial consequences for HMOs that refuse to defer to doctors
encourages these practices.
- Balance billing and Network Restrictions.
Many Americans have been surprised to receive a bill from an emergency
room doctor after receiving emergency treatment. The problem is that
physicians who are not part of the injured person's HMO or insurance
network are unsatisfied by the insurance company's low payment for
treatment. The practice of physicians sending an additional bill to the
patient to make up the difference between what the insurer paid and
what the doctor believed was the fair cost of the service -- known as
"balance billing" -- is rooted in the problem that insurance companies
refuse to pay fair rates. A recent lawsuit settled by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomofound that health insurers grossly underestimate so-called "customary
and reasonable" payments for PPO care, which leads physicians to send
the large balance of the bill to patients.
- Staggering rate increases.
Though a handful of health insurers control the market, no federal
government entity is charged with overseeing insurance pricing. As a
result, Americans experience cartel-like cost increases -- largely
driven by health insurance overhead and profit. Double-digit annual
premium increases -- ranging from 30-80% this year for individuals and
small business owners -- force many into high deductible insurance
policies. As a May 27 New York Times article describes,
federal regulation is necessary since the industries' recent promises
to coordinate to voluntarily reduce rates would violate anti-trust laws.
**
Read Consumer Watchdog's letter calling on Senator Baucus and members
of the U.S. Finance Committee to publicly answer ten questions about
how requiring all Americans to show proof of insurance or face tax
penalties will provide affordable health care. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=27289&topicId=9871
**
Read Consumer Watchdog's letter to President Obama and Sens. Kennedy
and Baucus warning them not to agree to the health insurers' plan to
gut state health care laws. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=27228
** Read Consumer Watchdog's letter to U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy(D-MA) urging that he continue to protect patients consistent with the
principles he has articulated during his 40 year career. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=26398
** Read Consumer Watchdog's analysis of health insurer and drug company contributions to members of Congress. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=25468
**
Read about a recent national poll that found that 65% of voters support
giving every American of any age the option of joining Medicare; 60%
are willing to pay more in payroll deductions for this option. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=24826
**
Read about a national poll that found, by contrast, that only 16% of
U.S. voters support, and 53% oppose, the insurance industries' plan of
requiring every American to provide proof of private health insurance
or face tax penalties or other fines. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=24110
Consumer Watchdog is a non-profit and non-partisan consumer advocacy organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and Santa Monica, California. For more information, visit us on the web at: http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
SOURCE Consumer Watchdog
PR Newswire