Insurance Company Targeted HIV Positive Patients To Drop Their Coverage

2:43 pm EST March 17th, 2010 | News | 15 Comments

This is who Republicans and conservative Democrats are giving cover to.

Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell’s case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.

The revelations come at a time when President Barack Obama, in his frantic push to rescue the administration’s health care plan, has stepped up his criticism of insurers. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote later this week on an overhaul of the health system, which Obama has said is essential to do away controversial and unpopular industry practices.

Insurance companies have long engaged in the practice of ‘rescission,’ whereby they investigate policyholders shortly after they’ve been diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses. But government regulators and investigators who have overseen the actions of Assurant and other health insurance companies say it is unprecedented for a company to single out people with HIV.

Topic: ,

Related Posts

«
»

15 Responses to “Insurance Company Targeted HIV Positive Patients To Drop Their Coverage”

  1. durablend says:
    March 17, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    “Bah let em go to the emergency room or get a job or something….” -cons

  2. jr says:
    March 17, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    “HIV patients have to die so we can have liberty”-Ron Paul

  3. El Cid says:
    March 17, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Shame on the liberals for using their big government intimidation to force an innocent company to destroy all their records of denying care coverage to one of their customers.

  4. MrGreyGhost says:
    March 17, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    Yeah, reminds me of what those “EVIL!” Repubs and conservative Dems are doing to “poor” taxpaying citizens like Natoma Canfield….OH WAIT!

  5. SaveFarris says:
    March 17, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    … and got their as*es sued, costing them a $10 million verdict, innumerated trial fees, and a crippling legal precedent.

    You left off that part. Wonder why?

  6. El Cid says:
    March 17, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    Exactly! This chemo-queen’s story is totally bunk because various people said she may qualify for various aid programs! What a preening, leukemia-rich bitch!

  7. Jody says:
    March 17, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Because it was irrelevant to the fact that THE COMPANY DENIED HEALTH CARE TO HIV POSITIVE PATIENTS, you paint drinking idiot.

  8. fafaroo says:
    March 17, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    This is so classic.

    Out of one side of the conservative mouth we hear: “The customer sued the company and won. The system worked but the liberals want to destroy it!”

    Out of the other side we hear: “The key to the health care crisis is limiting patient’s ability to sue their insurer and/or doctor through tort reform but the liberals won’t listen.”

    Awesome.

  9. Repack Rider says:
    March 17, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    Fafaroo FTW.

    Bueller?

  10. Michael Over Here says:
    March 17, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    What are the chances that SaveFarris doesn’t come back to this thread to respond to fafaroo’s full-of-win dissection of his argument?

  11. David says:
    March 17, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    They also try to drop women who they think might be trying to become pregnant. They comb their records looking for women who stop taking birth control pills.

  12. Quaker in a Basement says:
    March 17, 2010 at 6:03 pm

    TFJ!!

  13. Quaker in a Basement says:
    March 17, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    Mr. GG, did you actually read the article you linked?

    I recommend Mr. GG’s link to all. It is Ferristacular!

  14. Lonya says:
    March 17, 2010 at 8:43 pm

    Additionally, Fafaroo, if I read the article correctly, it appears the company made $150 million in profit (or savings) during a 5-year period. Even with a $10 million verdict they are still up $140 million and therein lies the crux of the matter.

    Some insurers, like some product manufacturers, will make this a part of their cost-benefit analysis. The conscious decision that the ocassional law suit will cost less than fixing a faulty design flaw. No difference in concept here. Engage in an unlawful policy and bank on the fact that if discovered the liability will be less than the savings. The fact that people die as a result of this is besides the point.

    BTW – rescission has its place in insurance but obviously, as practiced here, it is unlawful and violates the insurer’s good faith obligation to insure its policy holders.

  15. Duros62 says:
    March 17, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    Out of one side of the conservative mouth we hear:

    Um….because SHUT UP THAT’S WHY!

    /con