COMMENTS: 70
The Insurance Industry's Heartless Logic: Getting Beaten by Your Husband Is an Excuse to Deny Coverage
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
With the White House zeroing in on the insurance-industry practice of discriminating against clients based on pre-existing conditions, administration allies are calling attention to how broadly insurers interpret the term to maximize profits.
It turns out that in eight states, plus the District of Columbia, getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.
Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you're more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.
In human terms, it's a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence.
In 2006, Democrats tried to end the practice. An amendment introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), now a member of leadership, split the Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee 10-10. The tie meant that the measure failed.
All ten no votes were Republicans, including Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), a member of the "Gang of Six" on the Finance Committee who are hashing out a bipartisan bill. A spokesman for Enzi didn't immediately return a call from Huffington Post.
At the time, Enzi defended his vote by saying that such regulations could increase the price of insurance and make it out of reach for more people. "If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state," he said, according to a CQ Today item from March 15th, 2006.
Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for an insurance industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), said that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has proposed ending the discrimination. "The NAIC has a model on this that we strongly supported. That model bans the use of a person's status as a victim of domestic violence in making a decision on coverage," he said.
During the last health care reform push, in 1993 and 1994, the industry similarly promised to end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
Murray pushed to include the domestic violence concern in this year's comprehensive health care bill. "Senator Murray continues to believe that victims of domestic violence should not be punished for the crimes of their abusers. That is why she worked to include language in the Senate HELP Committee's health insurance reform bill that would ban this discriminatory and harmful insurance company practice," said spokesman Eli Zupnick.
In 1994, then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), now a member of Senate leadership, had his staff survey 16 insurance companies. He found that eight would not write health, life or disability policies for women who have been abused. In 1995, the Boston Globe found that Nationwide, Allstate, State Farm, Aetna, Metropolitan Life, The Equitable Companies, First Colony Life, The Prudential and the Principal Financial Group had all either canceled or denied coverage to women who'd been beaten.
The Service Employees International Union asked members to write letters to Congress regarding the exclusion and have quickly generated hundreds, says an SEIU spokeswoman.
The relevant provision:
SEC. 2706. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES BASED ON HEALTH STATUS.
'(a) IN GENERAL.--A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan or coverage based on any of the following health status-related factors in relation to the individual or a dependent of the individual:
(1) Health status.
(2) Medical condition (including both physical and mental illnesses).
(3) Claims experience.
(4) Receipt of health care.
(5) Medical history.
(6) Genetic information.
(7) Evidence of insurability (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence).
(8) Disability.
(9) Any other health status-related factor determined appropriate by the Secretary.
UPDATE: The eight states that still allow it are Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming, according to a report by the National Women's Law Center.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kittybrat on Sep 15, 2009 12:17 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They have no compassion, so let's get them in their bottom line. Everybody who is denied coverage due to prior abuse must sue the crap out of the insurance company.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Abuse
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: femtobeam on Sep 15, 2009 2:05 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: countingdaisies on Sep 15, 2009 4:03 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Posted by: Grandma Crabby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: logica on Sep 15, 2009 4:28 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What are you thinking?
Posted by: InsertNameHere
» RE: What are YOU thinking?
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: What are YOU thinking?
Posted by: Gripoxen
» RE: What are YOU thinking?
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: What are YOU thinking?
Posted by: paulaH
» RE: What are YOU thinking?
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Annarisse on Sep 16, 2009 3:30 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rhetoric of "she should leave" is thinly disguised victim-blaming, and you didn't bother to disguise it at all. Leaving increases their risks of escalated violence and poverty and, as we now find out, actually being treated for injuries rising out of domestic abuse can result in you being denied medical coverage for the rest of your life.
You're turning a complex social situation into a cut-and-dried choice, and it's not.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: uncertain
» Wow - ignorant *and* opinionated
Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: runnnnnnn [Uncertain, some asshole actually marked you higher than '1
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: wtfo
» RE: huh, and just how would you know that?
Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: mtnprivy
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: Gripoxen
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: paulaH
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on Sep 16, 2009 1:20 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Insurance company employees are subhuman filth whose only
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Insurance company employees are subhuman filth whose only
Posted by: bloominblacksheep
» Insurance company employees do what their boss tells them - or lose their jobs. Do you have a job?
Posted by: fcvoigt
» And is your health insurance tied to that job? Another reason to do what the boss says...
Posted by: fcvoigt
» RE: Insurance company employees are subhuman filth whose only
Posted by: improperly_sedated
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drricklippin on Sep 16, 2009 4:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For profit insurance companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders -NOT YOU (their policy holders)
Their business model generates profits by denying you care!
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desidid on Sep 16, 2009 4:56 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Did Anyone See The Video Of The Woman Insured By Cigna
Posted by: mlee
» I hope this works for you.
Posted by: 113121
» RE: Did Anyone See The Video Of The Woman Insured By Cigna
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
Posted by: John More. on Sep 16, 2009 5:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» They already have gov't sponsored health care
Posted by: bbq
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kimberly on Sep 16, 2009 7:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(3) FELONY CONVICTION RELATING TO HEALTH CARE FRAUD.--Any individual or entity that has been convicted for an offense [ T18CFR24CRIME ] which occurred after the date of the enactment of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 [36], under Federal or State law, in Connection With the Delivery of a Health Care Item or SERVICE [ HHS|HMO T42CFR417.1 Adverse Determination-Anti-dumping Violation ] or With Respect to any Act or Omission in a Health Care Program ... (1) operated by or financed in whole or in part by any Federal, State, or local government agency, of a criminal offense consisting of a felony relating to fraud, theft, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary responsibility, or other financial misconduct.
.
The Anti-Dumping [ of OPM FEHB et al - Federal Beneficiaries ] Statute is Enforced Jointly by the Health Care Financing Administration ( HCFA ) and the Office of Inspector General ( OIG ) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA), has JURISDICTION over the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996
.
1998 ANTI-TRUST ~ The HHS/OIG continues to work with the ( AOA ) Administration on Aging, ( HCFA ) Health Care Finance Administration, and the American Association of Retired Persons ( AARP ) to develop an OUTREACH CAMPAIGN [ 42CFR438.704 Marketing Violation ] to Educate Beneficiaries [ Entitled Individuals with Existing Federal FEHB|HMO Hospital Insurance Benefits ] and those who work with the ELDERLY to recognize FRAUD AND ABUSE and to Report it Appropriately [ HHS|HMO illegal agreement T42CFR417.1 grievance procedure T42CFR438.704 alternate dispute resolution - systematic denial of COVERED Claims | Anti-dumping and Anti-kickback violation - racketeering ]. This campaign ( PUBLIC FRAUD HHS|HMO T42CFR417.1 ) WAS - fully "launched" in 1999.
.
1998 ~ HHS - 42CFR438.704 ~ 1998 HHS OIG OUTREACH CAMPAIGN ~ T18CFR242CRIME
HHS|HMO T42CFR417.1 ~ fraud by fright | white collar crime 1996 HIPAA Violation ~ TITLE 42-[ HHS employee ]-PUBLIC HEALTH HUMAN SERVICES PART 417 -[ Federal HMO employee ]-HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS, Subpart B-( HMO )- Qualified Health Maintenance Organizations: SERVICES (g) Grievance procedures: Alternate Dispute Resolution, DENIAL OF Existing T42CFR409.33 OPM FEHB|HMO Hospital Insurance Services - HHS Anti-dumping violation, to force, fraud by fright, illegal HCFA State Medicaid T42CFR409.33 kickback conversions ]. (h) SPECIAL rules : Enrollees ( Covered Individuals ) under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program ( FEHBP ).An HMO that accepts enrollees under the ( OPM ) FEHBP (Chapter 89 of title 5 of the U.S.C. - OPM T5CFR890.105 Denial of COVERED T42CFR409.33 Claims, Alternate Dispute Resolution | Anti-dumping violation - illegal agreement to induce forfiture to force illegal HCFA State Medicaid T42CFR409.33 kickback conversion - eligibility POOR ) may obtain and retain Federal qualification if ................ RACKETEERING BY HHS and HMO Hospital Service Contract Providers T18CFR242CRIME.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 16, 2009 7:35 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: markw4786 on Sep 16, 2009 7:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelectnoone on Sep 16, 2009 8:05 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We as a nation need to say to these people "If the insurance company won't insure you, we will, and for less money"
The result will be one of two things; private insurance will suddenly become moral ( not likely ) or people will see how badly they are being treated by the private companies and flee to a government option.
I personally don't care if the insurance companies wither and die for their corruption and bad faith treatment of their own paying customers who they bilk for millions then drop.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: liblady2008 on Sep 16, 2009 8:52 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any instances of this should be dealt with as follows - huge fines for the perpetrators and remuneration and - damages+ for the wronged women.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Talon on Sep 16, 2009 8:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My solution: Send letters to the company thanking them for turning me down; now I don't have to pay them $400/month for nothing!
Screw them! Save your money, and do it on your own. Insurance is a scam.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I am in the same boat honey
Posted by: Grandma Crabby
» RE: Is 30% an acceptable profit margin for health care?
Posted by: kettleblack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Landbaron on Sep 16, 2009 9:28 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Archie1954 on Sep 16, 2009 10:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bloominblacksheep on Sep 16, 2009 11:21 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For awhile, I did work as a case manager for a large insurance company, so guess I would be subject to extermination, too? While I was taken aback by the denial practices of a very few of my colleagues,(individuals deny, and they need to be screened carefully) most of the policies and practices of the very large company for which I worked, our supervisors (of all identities, faiths, etc. in a very conservative place) and our medical consultants were very fair and deliberate. People and their docs continually were able to appeal. The company, while I was there, even opened another department devoted to special employee needs (I transferred to it.)It looks like the pre-existing thing is a done deal, so why are we discussing this?
When we should be talking about loosing the Public Option, which is a real threat right now? Call your Congressional Reps and Senators, People!
One mistake Obama is making is agreeing for a four-year deferral, which gives the Repubs a chance to overturn the entire thing with the stroke of an Exec Order should they return to Office in 2013. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: OMG, Extermination? What Are You...
Posted by: bloominblacksheep
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lmwilker on Sep 16, 2009 12:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Sep 16, 2009 12:50 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its time to end the insanity of a tax expenditure supported gaggle of parasitical financial intermediaries whose interest is their own profit--not America's health. Its time for a single payer health care plan. Its time for all people to see through the fraud of Obama-care.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leonardfeingold on Sep 16, 2009 2:36 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is how insurance rates are determined--based on risk. So whatever you think, the rates re medical insurance are no different. So the issue is whether we should make an exception in medical areas. I think not.
I smoke. I am a greater risk for lung cancer and other things than those who don;t smoke. I should be charged more than a non-smoker. That is the same principle as someone who chooses to live in a dangerous environment such as living with a violent man.
One may disagree but don't demonize the insurance company for practicing what insurance companies are supposed to do: rates a function of risk.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Wrong. Insurance companies play games to rip you off.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» No, YOU don't think
Posted by: bbq
» RE: No, YOU don't think
Posted by: leonardfeingold
» RE: No, YOU don't think
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: progressives don't think
Posted by: Gripoxen
» RE: progressives don't think
Posted by: ljstolzfus
» RE: progressives don't think
Posted by: leonardfeingold
» RE: progressives don't think
Posted by: Cybershaman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: smadaj on Sep 16, 2009 6:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And at my age, it's sort of hard to contemplate a revolution. I'm not anxious to die, and I sure don't want to see my kids dead, either.
But the corporate world has so thoroughly taken over our government, our laws, our police and military.... It's pretty frightening.
I am so sick, so sick of all the legal abuse that goes on. The abuse of women, minorities, children, the poor, handicapped, gays, blue-collar workers......
It just leaves me dumbfounded. Numb. Heartsick.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sometimes I read these articles, like the one about tasering kids, and
Posted by: leonardfeingold
» RE: Sometimes I read these articles, like the one about tasering kids, and
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: conservatives deny...
Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: conservatives deny...
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: conservatives deny...
Posted by: Cybershaman
» I totally agree!
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kittybrat on Sep 15, 2009 12:17 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They have no compassion, so let's get them in their bottom line. Everybody who is denied coverage due to prior abuse must sue the crap out of the insurance company.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Abuse
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: femtobeam on Sep 15, 2009 2:05 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: countingdaisies on Sep 15, 2009 4:03 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Posted by: Grandma Crabby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: logica on Sep 15, 2009 4:28 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What are you thinking?
Posted by: InsertNameHere
» RE: What are YOU thinking?
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: What are YOU thinking?
Posted by: Gripoxen
» RE: What are YOU thinking?
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: What are YOU thinking?
Posted by: paulaH
» RE: What are YOU thinking?
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Annarisse on Sep 16, 2009 3:30 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rhetoric of "she should leave" is thinly disguised victim-blaming, and you didn't bother to disguise it at all. Leaving increases their risks of escalated violence and poverty and, as we now find out, actually being treated for injuries rising out of domestic abuse can result in you being denied medical coverage for the rest of your life.
You're turning a complex social situation into a cut-and-dried choice, and it's not.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: uncertain
» Wow - ignorant *and* opinionated
Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: runnnnnnn [Uncertain, some asshole actually marked you higher than '1
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: wtfo
» RE: huh, and just how would you know that?
Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: mtnprivy
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: Gripoxen
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: paulaH
» RE: runnnnnnn.
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on Sep 16, 2009 1:20 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Insurance company employees are subhuman filth whose only
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Insurance company employees are subhuman filth whose only
Posted by: bloominblacksheep
» Insurance company employees do what their boss tells them - or lose their jobs. Do you have a job?
Posted by: fcvoigt
» And is your health insurance tied to that job? Another reason to do what the boss says...
Posted by: fcvoigt
» RE: Insurance company employees are subhuman filth whose only
Posted by: improperly_sedated
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drricklippin on Sep 16, 2009 4:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For profit insurance companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders -NOT YOU (their policy holders)
Their business model generates profits by denying you care!
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desidid on Sep 16, 2009 4:56 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Did Anyone See The Video Of The Woman Insured By Cigna
Posted by: mlee
» I hope this works for you.
Posted by: 113121
» RE: Did Anyone See The Video Of The Woman Insured By Cigna
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
Posted by: John More. on Sep 16, 2009 5:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» They already have gov't sponsored health care
Posted by: bbq
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kimberly on Sep 16, 2009 7:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(3) FELONY CONVICTION RELATING TO HEALTH CARE FRAUD.--Any individual or entity that has been convicted for an offense [ T18CFR24CRIME ] which occurred after the date of the enactment of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 [36], under Federal or State law, in Connection With the Delivery of a Health Care Item or SERVICE [ HHS|HMO T42CFR417.1 Adverse Determination-Anti-dumping Violation ] or With Respect to any Act or Omission in a Health Care Program ... (1) operated by or financed in whole or in part by any Federal, State, or local government agency, of a criminal offense consisting of a felony relating to fraud, theft, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary responsibility, or other financial misconduct.
.
The Anti-Dumping [ of OPM FEHB et al - Federal Beneficiaries ] Statute is Enforced Jointly by the Health Care Financing Administration ( HCFA ) and the Office of Inspector General ( OIG ) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA), has JURISDICTION over the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996
.
1998 ANTI-TRUST ~ The HHS/OIG continues to work with the ( AOA ) Administration on Aging, ( HCFA ) Health Care Finance Administration, and the American Association of Retired Persons ( AARP ) to develop an OUTREACH CAMPAIGN [ 42CFR438.704 Marketing Violation ] to Educate Beneficiaries [ Entitled Individuals with Existing Federal FEHB|HMO Hospital Insurance Benefits ] and those who work with the ELDERLY to recognize FRAUD AND ABUSE and to Report it Appropriately [ HHS|HMO illegal agreement T42CFR417.1 grievance procedure T42CFR438.704 alternate dispute resolution - systematic denial of COVERED Claims | Anti-dumping and Anti-kickback violation - racketeering ]. This campaign ( PUBLIC FRAUD HHS|HMO T42CFR417.1 ) WAS - fully "launched" in 1999.
.
1998 ~ HHS - 42CFR438.704 ~ 1998 HHS OIG OUTREACH CAMPAIGN ~ T18CFR242CRIME
HHS|HMO T42CFR417.1 ~ fraud by fright | white collar crime 1996 HIPAA Violation ~ TITLE 42-[ HHS employee ]-PUBLIC HEALTH HUMAN SERVICES PART 417 -[ Federal HMO employee ]-HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS, Subpart B-( HMO )- Qualified Health Maintenance Organizations: SERVICES (g) Grievance procedures: Alternate Dispute Resolution, DENIAL OF Existing T42CFR409.33 OPM FEHB|HMO Hospital Insurance Services - HHS Anti-dumping violation, to force, fraud by fright, illegal HCFA State Medicaid T42CFR409.33 kickback conversions ]. (h) SPECIAL rules : Enrollees ( Covered Individuals ) under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program ( FEHBP ).An HMO that accepts enrollees under the ( OPM ) FEHBP (Chapter 89 of title 5 of the U.S.C. - OPM T5CFR890.105 Denial of COVERED T42CFR409.33 Claims, Alternate Dispute Resolution | Anti-dumping violation - illegal agreement to induce forfiture to force illegal HCFA State Medicaid T42CFR409.33 kickback conversion - eligibility POOR ) may obtain and retain Federal qualification if ................ RACKETEERING BY HHS and HMO Hospital Service Contract Providers T18CFR242CRIME.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 16, 2009 7:35 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: markw4786 on Sep 16, 2009 7:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelectnoone on Sep 16, 2009 8:05 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We as a nation need to say to these people "If the insurance company won't insure you, we will, and for less money"
The result will be one of two things; private insurance will suddenly become moral ( not likely ) or people will see how badly they are being treated by the private companies and flee to a government option.
I personally don't care if the insurance companies wither and die for their corruption and bad faith treatment of their own paying customers who they bilk for millions then drop.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: liblady2008 on Sep 16, 2009 8:52 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any instances of this should be dealt with as follows - huge fines for the perpetrators and remuneration and - damages+ for the wronged women.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Talon on Sep 16, 2009 8:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My solution: Send letters to the company thanking them for turning me down; now I don't have to pay them $400/month for nothing!
Screw them! Save your money, and do it on your own. Insurance is a scam.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I am in the same boat honey
Posted by: Grandma Crabby
» RE: Is 30% an acceptable profit margin for health care?
Posted by: kettleblack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Landbaron on Sep 16, 2009 9:28 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Archie1954 on Sep 16, 2009 10:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bloominblacksheep on Sep 16, 2009 11:21 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For awhile, I did work as a case manager for a large insurance company, so guess I would be subject to extermination, too? While I was taken aback by the denial practices of a very few of my colleagues,(individuals deny, and they need to be screened carefully) most of the policies and practices of the very large company for which I worked, our supervisors (of all identities, faiths, etc. in a very conservative place) and our medical consultants were very fair and deliberate. People and their docs continually were able to appeal. The company, while I was there, even opened another department devoted to special employee needs (I transferred to it.)It looks like the pre-existing thing is a done deal, so why are we discussing this?
When we should be talking about loosing the Public Option, which is a real threat right now? Call your Congressional Reps and Senators, People!
One mistake Obama is making is agreeing for a four-year deferral, which gives the Repubs a chance to overturn the entire thing with the stroke of an Exec Order should they return to Office in 2013. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: OMG, Extermination? What Are You...
Posted by: bloominblacksheep
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lmwilker on Sep 16, 2009 12:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Sep 16, 2009 12:50 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its time to end the insanity of a tax expenditure supported gaggle of parasitical financial intermediaries whose interest is their own profit--not America's health. Its time for a single payer health care plan. Its time for all people to see through the fraud of Obama-care.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leonardfeingold on Sep 16, 2009 2:36 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is how insurance rates are determined--based on risk. So whatever you think, the rates re medical insurance are no different. So the issue is whether we should make an exception in medical areas. I think not.
I smoke. I am a greater risk for lung cancer and other things than those who don;t smoke. I should be charged more than a non-smoker. That is the same principle as someone who chooses to live in a dangerous environment such as living with a violent man.
One may disagree but don't demonize the insurance company for practicing what insurance companies are supposed to do: rates a function of risk.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Wrong. Insurance companies play games to rip you off.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» No, YOU don't think
Posted by: bbq
» RE: No, YOU don't think
Posted by: leonardfeingold
» RE: No, YOU don't think
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: progressives don't think
Posted by: Gripoxen
» RE: progressives don't think
Posted by: ljstolzfus
» RE: progressives don't think
Posted by: leonardfeingold
» RE: progressives don't think
Posted by: Cybershaman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: smadaj on Sep 16, 2009 6:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And at my age, it's sort of hard to contemplate a revolution. I'm not anxious to die, and I sure don't want to see my kids dead, either.
But the corporate world has so thoroughly taken over our government, our laws, our police and military.... It's pretty frightening.
I am so sick, so sick of all the legal abuse that goes on. The abuse of women, minorities, children, the poor, handicapped, gays, blue-collar workers......
It just leaves me dumbfounded. Numb. Heartsick.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sometimes I read these articles, like the one about tasering kids, and
Posted by: leonardfeingold
» RE: Sometimes I read these articles, like the one about tasering kids, and
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: conservatives deny...
Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: conservatives deny...
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: conservatives deny...
Posted by: Cybershaman
» I totally agree!
Posted by: bornxeyed
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




