Skip to main content

Highmark dumps people with pre-existing conditions (as well as cancer patients)

Why is it great to be a "supposedly non-profit" corporate giant in the land of government-subsidized corporate welfare ...

... or why Federal anti-trust laws apparently do not apply to entities like Highmark no matter how horrible the corporation's conduct is ...

Here's two new examples:

1.  Obamacare allows many procedures to be paid at a much higher rate if they are done in a hospital.  Get a stress test in a cardiologist's office?  Using exactly the same machine, the ACA says the cardiologist receives only about one-third the pay that a hospital would.  This is why most cardiology groups in Delaware have sold out to hospitals.  So what does the hospital do?  The hospital leaves the cardiology office open (the machine's already there, right?) and calls the building "a hospital clinic" so that it can continue to charge higher rates to insurance companies and Medicare than the original doctors could.  Got it?

So the same thing happens with infusion clinics that cancer patients depend on to deliver their meds and chemo.  Frankly, it is a really cheesy benefit for hospital chains that they lobbied into the ACA.

But here's the even cheesier wrinkle that Highmark is using in its continual quest to own medical insurance AND medical treatment in Pennsylvania ("und tomorrow the world!"):

Highmark does this billing trick with the Alleghany hospital chain that it bought, essentially paying itself the higher rates.

But if you're not a Highmark hospital?  Guess what?  Highmark refuses to recognize other hospital chains' clinics, and has held up millions, possibly tens of millions, in benefits payments for cancer patients.  Not just once.  But again.

So how do you run your competition out of town?  Figure out a (supposedly) legal way to pay their hospitals less than your hospitals for the same services, and as for those cancer patients who will be eventually cut off from treatment ... ?

I guess they can either go to Highmark or go to the Devil.  Which amounts to the same thing.

2.  Highmark dumps 37,000 insurance customers in PA with pre-existing conditions.  Go find your insurance on the new exchanges, Highmark says.  Or pay the penalties.  Just quit bothering us.  And, again, according to the nice bennies for insurance companies written into Obamacare, guess what?  It is completely legal for them to do so.

Just not ethical.  Or humane. Or ... well, you get the idea.

See, here's the thing:  Highmark is the kind of soulless interlocking corporate giant that cannot exist in a free market, only in a heavily regulated (Delacrat would correctly say, "rigged") market wherein the people who write the policies that give Highmark immunity and special protection are the same people who take Highmark's campaign contributions.

And in Delaware, as we shall discover in our next installment, not only is Highmark still pursuing its state-supported monopolistic strategy, but it already has the Insurance Commissioner in the bag.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This or RCCSD BOE voting for RTTT-D, tough call on which is more insane.
Anonymous said…
Anything new with Highmark?
GG. said…
I'm glad I'm reading your blog.
London prostitutions

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...