Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

Health Insurer Accused of "Attempted Murder" by Man Stripped of His Coverage

By William Ehart, Washington Times. Posted October 15, 2009.


Insurer would rather end health coverage for entire categories of illness such as muscular dystrophy than pay out one dime.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Ian Pearl has fought for his life every day of his 37 years. Confined to a wheelchair and hooked to a breathing tube, the muscular dystrophy victim refuses to give up.

But his insurance company already has.

Legally barred from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims, the New York-based insurer simply canceled lines of coverage altogether in entire states to avoid paying high-cost claims like Mr. Pearl's.

In an e-mail, one Guardian Life Insurance Co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr. Pearl "dogs" that the company could "get rid of."

A federal court quickly ruled that the company's actions were legal, so on Dec. 1, barring an order by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Pearl will lose his benefits.

His medical treatment costs $1 million a year.

Most of that is for 'round the clock, in-home nursing care -- for operation of his ventilator, hourly breathing treatments and continuous intravenous medication.

A Guardian spokesman said policies such as Mr. Pearl's -- which offered unlimited home nursing -- had simply become too expensive for new small-business customers to buy, and that even Medicaid and Medicare do not cover 24-hour home nursing. His parents, Warren and Susan Pearl of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said their health insurance premiums had risen over the years to $3,700 a month.

As a last resort, Mr. Pearl would be admitted to a state hospital under Medicaid. But the Pearls consider that a death sentence.

"Ian would be lucky, or unlucky, to survive more than a matter of weeks or months," Mrs. Pearl said. "One-on-one skilled nursing is essential."

Her husband, 60, a wealthy businessman, said the couple have enough savings to pay for their son's care for a few years, and after that, they could mortgage the family's home.

The Pearls' younger son, Matthew, is the best-selling author of "The Last Dickens," a novel published this year by Random House.

"Ian and Matt spend hours on the phone discussing story lines. Matt uses Ian to bounce ideas off of," Mrs. Pearl said.

Ian Pearl became the first wheelchair-bound pupil to be mainstreamed in the Broward County elementary schools, and he was elected president of his high school class at University School of Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale.

He has Type II spinal muscular atrophy - which often kills victims in infancy. He grew to adulthood only to suffer respiratory arrest at 19. He has required a tracheal tube ever since.

He has been fortunate most of his life to be covered under the Guardian small-business health plan his father bought through his remodeling company, Warren Pearl Construction of New York City.

Generous by modern standards, the health insurance plan covered home nursing, something most small-business plans do not cover today.

Over the years, Guardian has scaled back the benefits in new types of plans it has offered, to the point where it no longer offers in-home nursing coverage.

In the state of New York, where Mr. Pearl's business operates, 54 other employers offered the Guardian plan. Their policies covered nearly 500 employees and dependents, including two other severely ill people.

The Pearls moved to Fort Lauderdale 30 years ago because the humidity there is beneficial to their son. Warren Pearl has commuted back and forth from New York every weekend since.

He said Guardian has for years used private investigators to find pretexts to deny coverage. An investigator came to their door, he said, to get proof that he does in fact fly back and forth to New York and that his two-employee company really operates in New York. Investigators went to Mr. Pearl's job sites.

"The insurance companies are cheating in order to have obscene profits," he said.

Guardian, a 150-year-old mutual company, reported profits of $437 million last year, a 50 percent increase over $292 million in 2007. It paid dividends of $723 million to policyholders and had $4.3 billion in capital reserves, according to its annual report. The company's investment income totaled $1.5 billion that year, a small increase from the year earlier.

The insurer also canceled similar policies in New Jersey and South Carolina, and earlier ceased offering any health plans in Colorado, but did not cancel all of the policies in every state in which they were offered, said John Fried, the Pearls' attorney. The company took the action only against those plans where claims were highest, he said.

The insurer discontinued the coverage late last year, but was required by law to continue paying for Ian Pearl's care for another year.

In 2006, Guardian began an initiative called Moving Forward, which was "designed to increase Guardian's competitive position by reducing what it paid out in claims," wrote Judge William Pauley, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in his summary judgment in Guardian's favor in July.

The move would help the company lower overall rates to compete better for more business.

The judge found that the company had not violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), because it canceled entire policy lines. The Pearls also claimed Guardian violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), but the judge found that only HHS can enforce that law and that private citizens cannot sue under it.

The Pearls appealed to HHS under the Bush administration and were told the agency could do nothing, Warren Pearl said.

They petitioned again in a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Oct. 5, with support from their congresswoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat, but have not heard back.

Contacted by The Washington Times last week, the agency said, "Our Department has been contacted by the Pearl family and we have heard their very serious concerns. We are actively investigating this matter."

The House Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, is also investigating, the Pearls said. The committee held hearings on benefit cancellations earlier this year.

Spokesmen for Mr. Waxman and Ms. Wasserman Schultz did not respond to requests for comment.

In an e-mail to four other Guardian executives entered into evidence in the Pearls' suit, company Vice President Tim Birely discussed how the company could "eliminate this entire block to get rid of the few dogs."

He concluded, "Paul [Saylor], keep in mind that my intent is to be as narrow and laser-like as possible. We may need to broaden some things in NY due to state of domicile and some historical [nonsense] with some of these policyholders."

Asked about the use of the phrases such as "get rid of" and "dogs," Guardian spokesman Richard Jones said, "I'm not aware of any language related to any of the things that you just mentioned, no."

He said plans such as Mr. Pearl's had simply become too expensive to market to employers.

"We certainly sympathize with [Mr. Pearl's]'s condition. As a business, though, we have to offer plans that enough customers want," Mr. Jones said.

"But in this particular case the expense of the plan meant that most small businesses were not able or were not willing to purchase it. As a result we started offering different plans," he said.

"This has been through the courts. Guardian's activities were upheld by the courts as well as by the New York State Department of Insurance.

"We certainly don't think this particular case has anything to do with health care reform," Mr. Jones said.

Mr. Fried argues in his appeal that Judge Pauley misinterpreted the ERISA law.

"I think we're entitled to a trial as to whether Guardian's discontinuation of its policy was in effect discrimination against Ian Pearl," he said.

The Pearls say they are out for justice.

"This is a matter of life and death for my son," Warren Pearl said. "I have to have faith that HHS will enforce the law.

"This is attempted murder, as far as I'm concerned. They targeted us, they never expected to get caught. I believe that justice will prevail."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: new york, health and human services, guardian life insurance c, federal court

William Ehart is a staff writer for the Washington Times.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Who in the right mind?
Posted by: aberdeen on Oct 16, 2009 1:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who in their right mind could read an article like this and then oppose single-payer universal health care?

Whose healthcare would Jesus cut?
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it a good article? Who knows? Who cares?
Posted by: leafsong1 on Oct 16, 2009 2:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The source is the Washington Times. Consequently, it is foolish to give the article any credence. What next, National Enquirer? Official publications of the Chinese Communist Party?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Common Fallacy Posted by: lilygirl65
Why quibble about the source, in this instance?
Posted by: mandiwrite on Oct 16, 2009 3:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It sounds like a perfectly likely story to me. Medical schemes are doing this wherever the USA model is followed in whole or in part. A beloved friend of mine with SMA, who just died, had an intense battle with her insurer, supposedly the best in the country. They simply don't want to cover orphan diseases which cost a lot. They don't care if people die as a result.
There are maybe a few thousand people with this rare disease around the world. It could hardly break the medical monsters to treat them well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Please explain Posted by: felipe
» RE: Please explain Posted by: leafsong1
An interesting concept...
Posted by: adp3d on Oct 16, 2009 4:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...charging insurance executives with attempted murder!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An interesting concept... Posted by: clvngodess
and still your government equivocates!
Posted by: samd11 on Oct 16, 2009 4:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The REAL death panels are your insurance companies. The Real scoundrels are your politicians with their "cadillac" health care plans. No politician will ever be told that medical treatment will be withheld from him because it is to expensive to treat. Only those of you who have nothing to offer Baal to keep death at bay ( and of course, the powerless poor) will continue to be offered up as sacrifice on the altar of almighty profit. Where is your righteous anger, America?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bob K
Posted by: Indyman on Oct 16, 2009 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to know where the Christian churches and "right to life" people are on this. All I can hear is deafing quiet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bob K Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
Question
Posted by: Outspokengrandmother on Oct 16, 2009 8:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a corporation has all the rights of a person - can it be tried as a person? Thrown in jail as a person?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Question Posted by: JSurveyor
» Corporate death penalty Posted by: brunowe
This is exactly what Rep. Alan Grayson was alluding to...
Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale on Oct 16, 2009 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...when he said on the House floor that the health plan of the Republicans was to "not get sick" and if you did get sick, to "die quickly".

At the risk of posing an indelicate question, I wonder what the political philosophy is of this poor man's "wealthy businessman" father? Or was prior to this decision of Guardian?

A vote against a public option is a vote in favor of unmitigated greed for corporations and will result in more people dying sooner.

Asshole Dems should NEVER have taken single-payer off the table at the beginning. If public option fails, we should abandon that party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Move to England or France
Posted by: tulugaq on Oct 16, 2009 1:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given that we are not going to get a single-payer system here in time to save this life, perhaps the young man and his mother should move to England or France, where his care would be covered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JAIL SENTENCES AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE NEXT STEPS
Posted by: drricklippin on Oct 16, 2009 5:47 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clearly fines,lawsuits,bad publicity,marches blogging,writing and telephoning our elected officials are good but not enough.

The next steps-

- acts of civil disobedience
- jail time sentences for some CEOs of for profit health insurance companies

Dr.Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE IS VITAL TO ALL OF US
Posted by: cori on Oct 17, 2009 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not get distracted. If the gays can March so can all of us who don't want our lives traded for special interest profits! We must bombard congress with calls, 202-224-3121, threaten not to reelect reps who don't work for us and MARCH! What is going on? Where are the organizations? Call the white house and ask for your rep - we want the public option. They just coughed up $128 billion for both of these horrible useless wars for profit but they want to keep paying those useless profits for health care companies - They are the death panel that decides who lives and dies! We must fight! not be drugged by TV and laziness. Wall street has raped us and ownes congress this is why we must fight for our lives. The CEO's don't care if we die. Is this the kind of America you want to live in?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nearly every day
Posted by: willymack on Oct 17, 2009 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brings yet another example of how sick and depraved the psychopaths in the "health" care racket are.
Their in-your-face arrogance fairly begs for a government takeover of the whole sorry mess, but that'd be the correct and MORAL thing to do, and our "leaders" are in bed with the greedy swine, and moral is the furthest thing from their avaricious minds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's your "death panels"
Posted by: pastortom52 on Oct 18, 2009 5:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saw this from several different news sources. While the Republicans and health insurance con artists are telling us that Obama is going to set up "death panels" and enforce euthanasia on people "not worth the cost of keeping alive", here's your real "death panels". We already have them and they are insurance company bureaucrats that are deciding who will live and who will die in order to save the insurance companies their profits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you
Posted by: MatthewPearl on Oct 19, 2009 12:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My name is Matthew Pearl. This article is about my brother, Ian. Thank you for posting this, getting the story out, and to those of you who have posted supportive comments. Believe it or not, most media was not interested when we first brought this to their attention, but now the momentum is picking up. This Washington Times piece started it, and then Keith Olbermann chose CEO of Guardian Dennis Mannings as his "Worst Person in the World." We need help to put pressure on Guardian and on the politicians and administrators--Democratic and Republican alike--who need to make this right.

I've just set up a Facebook page dedicated to this. Please start by joining that. At the moment I've put up the contact information for some key executives at Guardian Insurance so you can express your feelings about this. I am compiling a contact list of government officials who need to focus on this, too.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=156839511657

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's A Really Strange Thing
Posted by: Eric.Arthur.Blair on Oct 20, 2009 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"He said Guardian has for years used private investigators to find pretexts to deny coverage. An investigator came to their door, he said, to get proof that he does in fact fly back and forth to New York and that his two-employee company really operates in New York. Investigators went to Mr. Pearl's job sites."

Itn't it strange that this company can spend lots of money on investigators to justify weaseling out of providing a service that was legally contracted for? They really have the proper right-wing, Republican conservative values that support a culture of life.

The wrong "dogs" are being gotten rid of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

According to one of their former employees, this is nothing new
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H on Oct 20, 2009 8:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A guy I have known for years still remembers the day Guardian Life (as "The Guardian" was called 2 decades ago) decided to put its entire payroll on direct electronic deposit. Since higher-salaried employees were already on a twice-a-month pay plan, the company decided to convert all the others from weekly pay to the same twice-a-month schedule.

The calculation was easy: Annualize the current weekly pay (52 X weekly) then divide by 24 (2 monthly pays X 12 months) for the correct adjusted pay.

Guardian chose a different formula: They doubled the weekly pay. That would have been hunky-dory if every month had exactly 4 weeks, but in fact the average is four-and-one-third weeks per month.

So every affected employee lost one-third week's pay each month. That's 4 weeks pay per year.

My friend did some checking and estimated that Guardian was going to cheat all the affected employees out of about 8,000 to 10,000 weeks of pay in just the next 12 months.

He spoke with his boss, with his boss's boss, then with the next boss up the line (a vice president), then with that guy's boss. None of them was willing to discuss the issue, but the last one told my buddy "go talk to Human Resources".

My friend finally got to speak with the HR VP -- a guy he says looked like Lee Horsely's twin brother -- and that dude, after denying the scam, finally ordered my friend to "SHUT UP".

So the cheat went through. My friend left Guardian for a more enlightened company (and better pay) four months later. He also got a story he'll tell anytime the insurance industry is mentioned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

isnt the signed contract between parties still binding?
Posted by: Bearzerker on Oct 20, 2009 11:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
since when did we start only supporting corporations and decisions based $$$ and forget about the poeple behind the claims and the contracts signed?

I'm pretty sure that if they [hmo's] can stick it to people in the fine print then they should be stuck with it in the same way or vice a verca!

when will people stop being an endless source of profits for these scammers...

This is just another freakshow at the top of the hour

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obviously, this family,
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Oct 22, 2009 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by giving birth to a child with muscular dystrophy, was ignoring the "healthful lifestyle choices" that Big Insurance is now mandating on us, its lowly premium-payers.

But by getting rid of the 'ConservaCrats' -- better known in most circles as 'DemoPublicans' -- in favor of some ACTUAL REAL DEMOCRATS (now known as those 'Oh Horrors, LIBERALS)--that'll push these POS companies back in their actual place--SELLING US INSURANCE instead of MANDATING OUR EARLY DEATHS ("Die quickly" as Congressman Alan Grayson of Fla recently said)

So let's all go to the polls next year, vote against these POS, and see if we still have an actual working Democracy, like we used to, back before 1980 and the Reagan Revolution--the first Revolution of, for and BY THE RICH against ALL THE REST OF US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting
Posted by: jasonsunero on Nov 13, 2009 7:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a crazy crazy story.
wealthy affiliate review
wealthy affiliate review

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement