Insurer Denies Life-Prolonging Treatment To Five-Year-Old Boy With Cancer

Insurer Denies Life-Prolonging Treatment To Five-Year-Old Boy With Cancer


Kyle Van Nocker


One of the worst abuses of private insurance companies is the practice of using spurious reasons to deny claims for medical treatments, which are often necessary for saving patients’ lives.

Kyler Van Nocker’s story shows that even 5-year-old kids are not exempt from this insurance company abuse. Van Nocker has neuroblastoma, which is a very rare form of childhood cancer that targets the nervous system and creates tumors throughout the body.

Due to successful treatment in 2007, Van Nocker’s cancer went into remission, giving him 12 months of pain-free life. Unfortunately, in Sept. 2008, the cancer returned, and Van Nocker was once again in need of treatment. Unfortunately, his health insurer, HealthAmerica, refused to pay for one form of treatment doctors believe could save his life (MIBG treatment) because they consider it “investigational/experimental” since it has yet to be approved by the FDA.

Yet in April 2008, the insurer approved cheaper treatment for Van Nocker that was also “experimental,” prompting Philadelphia Daily News columnist Ronnie Polaneczky to ask, “So why, pray tell, is HealthAmerica playing the ‘experimental therapy’ card in the case of the MIBG treatment Kyler now needs? Gee, money couldn’t have anything to do with the decision, could it?”

more...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/09/insurer-boy-cancer/

Isn't that tragic?

most denial of care goes on under the pretext of 'fraud'...and this is still allowed under the bill.

good luck affording or getting the 'care' this bill pretends to provide.

And I agree, it is one of the most vital elements of reform. And its not there.

What you've read about is things like refusing to cover someone because they have a preexisting condition. That would be changed under the bill.

But denial of CARE has to do with people who have an existing policy and then have their claims denied based on technicalities.

There's nothing in the legislation that prevents that from happening.

--thatthey have to honor any particular claim.

Two problems... a health insurance company that wants to micromanage care and harass patient/families into giving up sand a government agency (FDA) that is dragging its feet on a treatment that is used extensively in Europe and more commonly now here in the USA. When it comes to approving treatment for terminal diseases, the government will drag its feet just as long as the insurance companies.

they may be used for a PR campaign.

er, "Death Panels", um ...

might decide whether or not this post-utero fetus can live, Right?