Here’s one thing that really bugs me about being diabetic: insurance companies that don’t cover testing supplies. That seems to go against common sense for me. Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the insurance company to encourage diabetics to remain as healthy as possible? Wouldn’t they want to help diabetics avoid complications as much as they could?

Complications not only prevent diabetics from living a more normal life, they also cost money. I would think insurance companies would want to prevent that. Maybe the answer to that would be legislation.
In Ohio, for example, …read more

As a medical writer and editor, I’ve been seeing lots of controversy surrounding the concept of comparative effectiveness lately. It sounds good in theory, but so far, the execution leaves something to be desired. In short, comparative effectiveness is simply looking at two (or more) treatments for a certain ailment and determining which is the most effective. Sounds good, right? But what if a drug works for 75% of the people but not 25% of the people, and insurance covers only the drug that’s most effective 75% of the time? And what if you’re in the other 25%?
That’s what Peter …read more

Last night I stumbled across a 2006 article called “Anorexics Denied Insurance Coverage: Insurance Companies Stop Coverage And Cost Lives” on CBSnews.com, and I was astonished to read about a situation in which an anorexia patient’s insurance company withdrew coverage during her treatment.
I decided to do a little research and see if anything came up more recently on this very topic, and here’s what I found:

“Illness a costly burden: Insurance falls short for eating disorders” from the Chicago Tribune
“Insurers’ Refusal To Cover Eating Disorders Prompts Lawsuits” from Psychiatric News
“Treating anorexia: the question of insurance” from The Seattle Times
“Anorexia Patients Denied …read more