Calif. teen's family sues Cigna over transplant

Of course I don't have any problem with transplants. But when you have a limited supply, you ration resources out to those who will make the best use of it. This wasn't it.

It is laughable that you think a single-payer government-sponsored "insurance" would have paid for this procedure.

But I think your post explains why the local nursing unions were so involved in this case: it was part of the political push for government-funded health care, it wasn't about the health and welfare of the terminally-ill girl.

I for one do not want this country to begin "rationing" anything. Especially not healthcare.
Cost is an issue. You cannot effectively manage anything without considering cost. There is a cost in not spending money too. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money and that goes double for the insurance companies. I do not want a "suit" sitting at a desk to decide if my parents are too old to get their blood pressure medicine anymore, nor do I want them aborting babies of unwed mothers under the age of 18 because it is cost effective. DO YOU? Doctors and other healthcare workers need to be making decisions with the patient. There is alot of "stuff" that never makes it into a chart. Like what a patient actually looks like. Some hospitals are starting to take pictures of the patients on admission so everyone has something to go by.
When you are all alone reading charts it is nice to have a face to put with the "story" in writing in the chart. I think this patient was not a good candidate for a liver transplant; that is fact, but she was never even on the list. This was because the insurance co. said no. She probably wouldn't have been transplanted but shouldn't the family feel like they did everything that they could for her. They don't feel that way because they did not have a chance. That is not a place that a grieving family needs to be in. If the HMO had said sure she can have a liver we will pay for it, the doctors would've been the "bad guys" for not proceeding. What I am saying is that the insurance companies take premiums and render a service for that money. They need to followthe guidelines of the policy that they sold. It is usally very clear if experimental trx is covered, if transplants are covered etc........if the policy states it is a covered event then it is a covered event and the company is obligated to pay. Many people have recieved organs that shouldn't have gotten them. Healthcare unfortunately is not immune from rackiteering and organs rank at the top of the list. Bribes are not unheard of anywhere. Resources should be more valued than they are but most folks in N.America have this sense that everything is there if and when they need it no matter what it is. In many parts of this wonderful planet we all live on this whole post would be laughable. In many places this little girl wouldn't have gotten the BMT let alone a liver too especially with leukemia but the issue is WHO IS MAKING THE DECISION.

Thank you for your response. I'm always interested in what your perspective as a MD is and you have often helped clarify things by your posts.

Cigna pays more than most commercial insurers. They monitor their care and often deny, but reverse if the request is the standard of care. What this family wanted was extreme care with no scientific background with little chance for meaningful recovery.