CNA Releases Statement on Tragic Sarkysian Case

‘Cigna Should Have Listened to Her DoctorsAnd Approved the Transplant a Week Ago’ 

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee today blasted insurance giant CIGNA for failing to approve a liver transplant one week earlier for listen to 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, who tragically died last night just hours after CIGNA relented and agreed to the procedure following a massive national outcry.

 



On Dec. 11, four leading physicians, including the surgical director of the Pediatric Liver Transplant Program at UCLA, wrote to CIGNA urging the company to reverse its denial. The physicians said that Nataline “currently meets criteria to be listed as Status 1A” for a transplant. They also challenged CIGNA’s denial which the company said occurred because their benefit plan “does not cover experimental, investigational and unproven services,” to which the doctors replied, “Nataline’s case is in fact none of the above.”

 

“So what happened between December 11, when CIGNA denied the transplant, and December 19 when they approved? A huge outpouring of protest and CIGNA’s public humiliation. Why didn’t they just listen to the medical professionals at the bedside in the first place?” asked Geri Jenkins, RN, a member of the CNA/NNOC Council of Presidents who works in a transplant unit at the University of California San Diego Medical Center.

 

On Thursday, CIGNA was bombarded with phone calls to its offices across the country while a rally sponsored by CNA/NNOC, with the substantial help of the local Armenian community, drew 150 people to the Glendale offices of CIGNA – all of which produced the turnaround by CIGNA to finally reverse its prior denial of care.   

 

CNA/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro called the final outcome “a horrific tragedy that demonstrates what is so fundamentally wrong with our health care system today. Insurance companies have a stranglehold on our health. Their first priority is to make profits for their shareholders – and the way they do that is by denying care.”

 

“It is simply not possible to organize major protests every time a multi-billion corporation like CIGNA denies care that has been recommended by a physician,” DeMoro said. “Having insurance is not the same as receiving needed care. We need a fundamental change in our healthcare system that takes control away from the insurance giants and places it where it belongs – in the hands of the medical professionals, the patients, and their families.”

-----------------------------------------------

* STOP THE HEALTHCARE DISASTER *

* PATIENTS: Join the revolt by telling your healthcare story here!

* NURSES: Pledge to be there for patient care!

-----------------------------------------------

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

CNA RELEASES STATEMENT ON TRAGIC SARKYSIAN CASE

When you say the healthcare system needs reform, why not start looking at the hospitals and physicians! They are just as money hungry as large corporations. All the bad press is on the insurance company for not approving a procedure that did not meet their guidelines. Insurance is not free rein on coverage. My heart truly bleeds for the family and the victim in this story. However, please do not overlook the statement that the hospital would have performed the procedure with a down payment of $75,000 from the family. Talk about money hungry people, these are true health care individuals, doctors and hospitals are in the business of saving lives, so why didn't they do what they needed to do to save hers? Instead, let's blame the health insurance company for not providing coverage for a service not covered, or not responding to public outcry and giving in sooner than later. I don't mean to be so harsh, but I am tired of spending an hour in the waiting room, 30 minutes in the treatment room and only four minutes with a physician and getting a bill for $150.00. Now, should I blame my insurance company because they won't pay it for me because I have a deductible to meet? Or do I blame the physician who is grossly overcharging me for his time, and doesn't compensate me for my time! So again, as sad as this story is, the blame truly can be placed with other true money hungry people, i.e. the hospital and the physician.

CNA RELEASES STATEMENT ON TRAGIC SARKYSIAN CASE

Dear Anonymous,
It is, in fact, the insurance company that is to blame. Hospitals and Doctors like myself provide enormous amounts of free and discounted care to needy, uninsured people. The reason our hospitals bleed red ink, are overcrowded and are forced into horrible decisions like this is because healthcare in this country is controlled by those that place profits before people. If your local hospital provides free care based only upon need, they could not afford to stay open to care for you or your family in your time of need. The reason your doctor spends only 4 minutes with you, looks harried, and "grossly overcharges" you for his time is that his reimbursement continues to be slashed by insurers, while the expenses of keeping his office open and competently staffed continues to increase. Simple math means you have to see more patients in the same amount of time to make ends meet. In fact, if insurers didn't aggressively and arbitrarily deny claims, your doctor could charge less, and rather than spend his time and money fighting them, he could actually spend his time caring for his patients.

Yes, let's place the blame where it belongs, rid ourselves of these parasitic insurance companies and focus our national priority on taking care of people in need, not allowing them to die for the pathetic reasons that rationalize insurance company profiteering.

Sarkysian

The tragic part of this debate is the ignorance of those who simply lash out with little data to support their claims. I am an attorney who has practiced within healthcare for 25 years. The changes I have witnessed are profound. It is not incorrect to lay some of the blame for the mess we are in on physician compensation. In many ways, doctors helped contribute to the problem by grossly over-treating in a fee for service system that helped drive specialization and significant wealth generation by the physicians. But those days are over for any provider outside of plastic surgery, dermatology or the few other cash driven practices. The imposition of managed care is first and foremost a fight over money. After exerting little control over the system for decades, insurance companies, in essence responded with control that has completely altered the landscape. The real tragedy was that this was not "patient driven". The "health maintenance" notion is a sham. The insurance companies have simply said to providers, we are now in charge and we will dictate the terms. The notion of "experimental treatment" is just one of the mechanisms used by plans to protect the bottom line. Busy waiting rooms are the result of HMO's consolidating their panels by reducing reimbursement rates to the point where doctors have to choose either a high volume practice or get out of the business of taking care of insured patients. By the way, that $150 fee you paid is not set by the doctor. It is what the plan (insurer) sets as the rate for your visit. Physician compensation has declined significantly and many are just getting out of the business. Hospitals operate on very thin margins and I can tell you no one is getting rich. Finally, something not mentioned in the movie, nor anywhere in this website is the final insult and that is the ERISA pre-emption which bars lawsuits against employer sponsored plans, the vast majority of which cover patients. Not only have the plans set up a system of denials, they also benefit from a law which was passed in 1974 (which had nothing to do with health care plans) which may prevent the Sarkiysian family from holding the company responsible. Plans have poured millions of dollars into stopping any legislation to remedy this and the conservative courts have done everything to keep this pre-emption in place. Some reality based thinking and less emotion is needed in solving this. But if "anonymous" needs to blast physicians, oh well.

Nationwide Customer Care:

Nationwide Customer Care: 1.800.CIGNA24 (1.800.244.6224)

Make your voice heard. Give Cigna a call and express your disdain for this company.

Their motto is: A Business of Caring.

Stay of execution...

So, as nurses, we called Cigna, on Nataline's behalf, and got the chilling automated answering machine, "if this is a life threatening emergency please hang up and call 911..." followed by an endless menu of "customer care" options...

Undaunted, I chose the member services extension, and was told by a haggard service representative: "I'm just a foot-soldier."
I was disgusted by her answer and said:
"So, lady, you work for a company that's declared war on Nataline's life, don't you feel a little bit ashamed of your employer; doesn't it make you want to resign from their army and look for a more decent way to make a living?"

In the meantime, where was our Governor? What we needed here was a "stay of execution." Cigna threw the switch and condemned Nataline to a certain death...at UCLA, a public hospital. Hey, Gov, aren't you on The Board of Regents? I pay taxes and I want my money to go for medically necessary health care. Why did you veto SB 840? Publicly accountable, publicly administered...come clean, Governor. You've got insurance blood money on your hands!

How about the Speaker, Mr. Nunez? How does he justify mandating insurance coverage? Why did he show a willingness to compromise the health of Californians like Nataline? Last year, the legislature passed SB 840; the legislature acted in representing the will of the people. What happened Mr. Speaker? You backed down like a good little girly man under the threat of a veto, and made a deal that was in your interest, not for the benefit of the people. Your pitiful "solution" ABx1 1 will not control costs, will not extend health care to the uninsured and underinsured, and leaves heartless insurance companies in the position of being able to deny care.

SB 840 is a real solution. I hope Jacob Marley's ghost visits Scrooges Nunez and Schwarzenegger and they wake up supporting this progressive, affordable, portable vision of health care for all. Care based on medical need, not on ability to pay, so that the tragedy of Nataline Sarkysian isn't repeated in any family's life, ever again!

More to this story - It needs an objective look

So would a government run healthcare system have appoved this transplant. I doubt it. Canada and England do far less Liver Transplants than the USA. UC did not need Cigna's approval to perform this operation. The insurance company does not decide if the operation will take place, they decide on payment. UC had a very unstable patient and a norrow window of availability of a liver. They should have done the operation and appealed the decision after the fact if they felt it would save her life. UC is the one that should be held accountable for lack of action. But that does not sell a cause. Its much easier to call an Insurance company greedy murders. Come on, your loosing credibility by distorting this tragic issue for your political agenda.

private insurance waste

The ignoble reality is that private insurers bilk billions of dollars out of us and our health care system. They have no essential purpose in the system. These private insurers are middle men who rob us not only of our money but of our good health and at times even our lives because of their greed. That has to stop.

Anonymous stated: 'The insurance company does not decide if the operation will take place, they decide on payment.'

We pay our premiums to insurance companies so that in time of need we have coverage. That is our contract with the insurance company. Because the private companies are driven by profit they skew their pay-out protocols massively in their favor often denying coverage upon first request by health care providers. The more they deny, the more 'profit' they have. And in the end, they get rich; we get dead. Their decision to pay out or not directly effects the care we get.

And how do these decisions get made? Behind closed doors, by clerks and executives who have no bedside clinical knowledge and no real-time accountability.

We need to put the decisions back in the hands of the medical professionals who have the intimate details of and the personal relationships with the patients.

We as a society can decide in open debate, not in secret board rooms, what operations and treatments we will cover. Such openness is democracy at work. It is quintessentially American.

Our health care system is in crisis. Nataline Sarkisian's death is just one awful, heart-breaking manifestation of the crisis. The cure for this crisis is guaranteed health care for all. There is a bill in Congress ready to go: HR 676 written by John Conyers, Representative from Michigan. It is a single-payer system that would cover everyone, instead of leaving millions of Americans without, for the same amount of money that we are spending now.

We Americans pride ourselves on efficiency and innovation. A single-payer system uses most of its funds for actual care of actual patients, having about a 3% overhead cost. Compare that to the ratio private insurers operate under: they have about a 30% overhead cost. For efficiency's sake and for the sake of our well being, we must abandon the wasteful private insurance paradigm and move to the sane guaranteed single-payer system.

It will make us all proud. And will leave fewer parents with broken hearts and dreams.

"More to this story" Indeed

Here again the writer prefaces the comment saying "government run healthcare system." We are up against an army of drones who will never understand that the new proposal for universal healthcare is not "government-run." "Government-run" would be the care that Cheney gets, owned & operated by the Army. That is not the proposal. It is now unfashionable to call something Communist, or Un-American, so the phrase "government-run" is the new substitute code word. The writer may actually have a good point for criticising UC for dragging their heels, but the slavering fear of a humane value-based system replacing the Divine, God-Given right of profit-making corporations is the clearly the most important concern of the writer.

So what if Nataline would not have been covered if we had Universal Health Care? That is a bridge we can cross when we come to it. There are so many other cases that would be covered it's a phony argument. A false-front.

We need to attact the holy profit mindset, and destroy this assumption of the greatness of private health insurance as the sociopathic mental illness that it is, a heartless apologia for more gouging of the life and health of the American people.

They will call it Socialism or Communist

if we have health care for all in this country. They will attack the ones who fight for it.

I have to ask...do we call the British, French, Germans, Swedish, etc. leaders and government Communists becuase of their national health care programs?

Those who appose it are spreading fear while people lose their homes and even die from our expensive and incompetent insurance for profit health care system.

Government run and profit motive

So if universal healthcare would not be Government run who would run it, a Insurance company? The profit motive is the same motive that has delivered high saleries to Nurses. CNA nurses, who I am one of, are some of the highest paid in the world. Much higher than the nurses in single payer countries. I work with many who have come to the US to work from these countries and they agree. So when you rail about taking the profit out of healthcare your working against our own future raises. If you want a objective prespective on the issue read Mathew Hold or Maggie Mayer who have very well written blogs on the CIGNA case. They agree that rationing of care will be a part of any system we choose and this Liver Transplant would have been denied in any of the single payer countries. Your bias and attempt at political gain on this issue is hurting your credibility on others.