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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...