It’s always news when the Goliath in a given industry suffers a stern court rebuke, and it’s thus unsurprising to see recent accounts involving a setback for UnitedHealthGroup receive major press coverage.
An insurance company is engaging in far from neutral behavior in its repeated refusals to authorize necessary treatment for his patient, says a doctor in one state. Rather, its actions are purposefully antagonistic. Moreover, the doctor (a psychologist) states that they are endangering the patient.
Increasingly, and sadly, Americans are approaching the front doors of emergency care centers across the country more concerned about their pocketbooks than they are with the medical conditions immediately confronting them. And that often rings true even when their symptoms are clearly serious or even life-threatening.
People across the country argue all the time about national issues they regard as important. Opinions are strong and often sharply divided these days spanning topics ranging from trade tariffs and criminal law policies to national security and climate change.
Here’s a dose of irony. Some sleep apnea sufferers commenting in an in-depth media piece centered on a breathing-assistance machine say that issues surrounding the device are worrisome enough to actually make them lose sleep.
“You need to do something or you’re just going to keep getting sued.”
We delved into a judicial decision involving an insurance policy in a post from last month, noting that many people would find fault with it and question the heavy onus it seemingly places upon policyholders. Our October 26 entry stressed that, while insureds certainly must familiarize themselves with key policy points, they can hardly be expected to grasp fine-print subject matter equally as well as insurance industry experts.
“We have … determined that the treatment is medically necessary.”
We suspect that many readers of our insurance law blog across Oklahoma and elsewhere will find fault in the recent insurance-linked ruling issued by one state’s highest court. And we can understand why.
First things first. Without being even arguably facetious, it might be reasonably suggested that one highly specialized business company named the Good Sam Club should change its name to something else.