CIGNA HealthCare Murders Teenage Girl

The former.

The "Edwards Scumbag" meme has been played out pretty ferociously by conservative Republican bloggers and operatives. O'Bill, one way or another, has come to feelings that mirror it. Since I've heard sceptical sounds about Edwards-the-person even among liberals, I was afraid it would get stuck like the "cold, calculating Hillary" stuff. So it's good to see that at least when it's this outright "Edwards Scumbag" stuff that's pushed, it meets a broad, unanimous rejection by a variety of posters as unreasonable and unfair.

Interesting, thanks. I agree.


I haven't been following a lot re the US election, but I suspected this was the case.

I'm still not clear on what it is you're saying that most experts knew and know now. What are the odds, today, that a woman in labor with a child in the footling breach presentation will not be delivered by c-section?

This isn't about c-sections in general, which is something I disagree with Edwards' attributed quote about and think they are too often used today because the birthing process is too tightly controlled. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't have won the case in question.

As to him opposing a bill that would have set up a trust fund for parents of damaged kids, I don't usually take a newspaper article's word for such things as they usually oversimplify the legislation in question. I wonder if you know exactly what the bill entailed.

Well, back on the actual thread topic:


CIGNA Defends Initially Denying Teen Transplant

LOS ANGELES (CBS) -- CIGNA Healthcare officials defended themselves on Monday against allegations the insurer acted maliciously when it initially rejected a liver transplant for a Northridge teen who later died, saying its experts determined the procedure may not have been "effective or appropriate."

The memo was issued in response to the death of Nataline Sarkisyan, who died at 5:50 p.m. Thursday after being pulled off life support at UCLA Medical Center.

Her family plans to sue CIGNA, and their attorney said he will push for criminal charges against the company, alleging the insurer twice took Nataline off the liver transplant list and purposely waited until she was near death to approve the transplant because the company didn't want to pay for the procedure and her after-care.

Doctors had said she had a 65 percent chance of living for at least six months if she got a new liver, but the insurance company refused to pay for the procedure, saying it was experimental.

In a memo sent to CIGNA employees today, CIGNA President David Cordani and Chief Medical Officer Dr. Jeffrey Kang said the company consulted its own experts who doubted the effectiveness of the procedure.

"In this case, rather than going through our standard method of appeal, we went directly to not one, but two independent experts in the field who agreed that the procedure in question, given the patient's particular circumstances, would not have been an effective or appropriate treatment," the pair wrote in the memo.

Cordani and Kang insisted that the company's commitment "is to assure that our members receive the highest quality health care."

In their memo, Cordani and Kang said they cannot specifically comment on the allegations raised by the Sarkisyan family, but noted many of the accusations "have mischaracterized our decisions and intentions."

"What is often misunderstood is that most health benefit plans, whether public or private, do not cover unproven and experimental treatment related to transplants or other treatments," they wrote in the memo. "Coverage decisions under these plans are based on the best scientific and clinical evidence available, often utilizing external experts, without consideration of cost.

"At CIGNA, we facilitate payment for more than 90 percent of all requested transplants and specifically more than 90 percent of the liver transplant requests made to us."

A candlelight vigil was held yesterday in Encino for Nataline, whose case sparked protests and vows to reform the nation's healthcare system.

During the vigil, family attorney Mark Geragos said he has evidence the denial was company policy.

"Within the last 48 hours, I received e-mails from CIGNA employees who said that this was a corporate policy - to deny, deny, deny," Geragos said.

CIGNA "literally, maliciously killed" Nataline, he said earlier.

About an hour before the girl died, and as a protest by the California Nurses Association was under way outside CIGNA's Glendale office, the company announced it would pay for the transplant.

CIGNA officials said the procedure "was outside the scope of the plan's coverage" but that "despite the lack of medical evidence regarding the effectiveness of such treatment, CIGNA HealthCare has decided to make an exception in this rare and unusual case, and we will provide coverage should she proceed with the requested liver transplant."

After the girl died, CIGNA expressed "deepest sympathies" for the family.

"Their loss is immeasurable, and our thoughts and prayers are with them," the company said in a statement. "We deeply hope that the outpouring of concern, care and love that are being expressed for Nataline's family help them at this time."

In today's memo, Kang and Cordani said the company is "receiving unfair criticism," and they wanted to address employees "to make clear to all of you that in this case we fulfilled our responsibilities correctly and with the utmost integrity."

The girl's plight has made headlines around the world, and a member of the California Nurses Association said they will try to use Nataline's story to shine a light on problems with the American health care system.

"The incredible outpouring of support from Americans across the country for Nataline's family and condemnation of CIGNA's heartless behavior is inspiring - and an indication of the overwhelming public disgust with insurance companies and their restrictions on care," registered nurse Geri Jenkins, a member of the CNA/NNOC Council of Presidents who works in a transplant unit at the University of California San Diego Medical Center, said in a statement from the CNA.

Some CNA members attended the vigil, including Jill Furillo.

"What we have is a healthcare industry that makes decisions based upon the bottom line, whether or not they're going to make profits and in this case at the expense of the lives of our young people," she said.

Family members said UCLA had a liver available for transplant, but they could not perform the procedure because of CIGNA's refusal to cover it.

Nataline had been in a vegetative state for three weeks, according to her mother, Hilda Sarkisyan. The girl was diagnosed with leukemia at age 14. After two years of treatment the cancer went into remission but came back this summer.

When doctors said Nataline could use a bone-marrow transplant, the Sarkisyans discovered that her brother was a match, and he donated his bone marrow the day before Thanksgiving.

However, Nataline developed a complication from the bone-marrow transplant and, because her liver was failing, doctors recommended a transplant, according to an appeal letter sent to CIGNA earlier this month.

During last night's vigil, friends and family tried to put aside their anger to celebrate Nataline's life.

"If there's one thing she ever taught me, it was the value of human life," her friend Hovig Keushgerian said during the vigil.

Nataline's funeral is scheduled for Friday.

Source

Although CIGNA is only working within this ridiculous system that values money and profits over the health and well-being of actual living human beings, the blood of this girl is still on their hands. But more than that, it should be on the hands of every politician who has ever voted for, advocated, or spoken out on behalf of this backward-ass killing machine that is our healthcare system.

Noone has really addressed the fact that she was on a downward slope from her battle with a recurrance of leukemia . I feel like Im flip floppin here but I cant deny the evidence that perhaps she was not gonna benefit from a liver transplant anyway? anybody??

That decision should be up to the doctors treating the girl. Period.

Here's where I'm stuck...



If the transplant was outside the scope of the plan's coverage, but CIGNA approves 90% of all transplant requests (appeals?) then it really isn't outside the scope of the coverage. What I think they're saying is that transplants are generally not covered but that they pay for more than 90% of them anyway (through the appeal process). How then do they justify saying that it isn't covered?

I'm not buying the malicious intent argument, but I think they've written themselves into a box with their policies.

I'm buying the malicious intent argument in the sense that their decision was contrary to the girl's physicans and, I would guess, made based on financial considerations disguised as a medical opinion. After all, some of Cigna's own employees felt so strongly about it that they secretly contacted the girl's family's attorney and said that Cigna's S.O.P. is to "deny, deny, deny."

If it were always up to the doctors then the door would be open for scamming of the health care system by corrupt doctors, thereby raising the costs of insurance for everyone and putting it out of some people's reach.

And doctors are sooo much more likely to be corrupt than insurance companies.

I'll live. :wink:

Question though. Far as I understand, at the very basis of your argument against Edwards is that in his commercial career before he was a politician, he took on cases and clients that were morally wrong. He chose personal profit over ethics when he willingly took on cases that were just plain wrong, and although thats what lawyers do, thats not the kind of person you want as President. Right, more or less?

Now I know you were a Giuliani supporter, and still look kindly upon his candidacy. So what do you make of the client list of his consulting firm, Giuliani Partners?

There is Purdue Pharma for example, manufacturer of OxyContin. A NYT report "details the extent to which the former mayor went to bat for the OxyContin makers, in exchange for a small fortune, lobbying prosecutors, meeting with DEA officials, persuading lawmakers, and winning public-relations battles, all for a company led by executives who later pleaded guilty to criminal charges." Giuliani personally met with Drug Enforcement Agency chief Asa Hutchinson when the DEA launched a criminal investigation of the company.

The Washington Monthly notes that "the list of controversial clients is getting pretty long". There is his business relationship with a Qataran emir, for example:



Or there's the former drug-runner Hank Asher:


Now Giuliani and GP have insisted repeatedly that Giuliani was never a lobbyist. But when it comes to this Seisint, this was his job:


Apparently, there's also a "Hong Kong organized crime figure with reported ties to North Korea, among others".

Now each of these cases is different, and they're all different again in various ways from Edwards' cases you take offense to, for better or for worse. For one, you have argued that what you see as Edwards' unsavoury cases weren't just unsavoury, they played a significant role in perpetuating bad health care. Here, you might argue, the fallout wasnt anywhere as significant.

But that's already a pragmatic argument, focusing on outcome rather than intent. It doesnt address the underlying argument you're making, if I understand you correctly: that Edwards was a scumbag because he chose financial gain over basic fundamental ethics. That he took on unsavoury cases that would do no good for the public interest, out of greed.

You obviously feel extremely passionately about this lack of ethics, and say that it disqualifies one for the job of President; but you feel good about Giuliani. How does that work?

How does that work? It shouldn't be too hard for a bright guy like you to figure out, nimh… I must be ignorant about Giuliani. I will read your linked pages and if I agree that Giuliani is even half as bad as Edwards has proven himself to be; I will admit it and regard him accordingly. Fair enough? (And by now; you should know this is true, of me)

You should also know that I regard you as one of the smartest people I've encountered on A2K, or anywhere else. And at the very top of the integrity meter, as well. For a while; I thought you and Robert were the same guy (for the record, though I frequently disagree with him, I believe Robert is easily the most impressive intellect I've ever run across.)

I just don't get your attachment and subsequent endorsement of Edwards. The man built the model for screwing baby-doctors in 1985. By 1985, half of the experts in the field disagreed with his screed. It seems clear to me, at least, that any rational thinking person would find it at least reasonable for their expert to rely on a belief that half the experts in their field are correct… even if they are eventually proven wrong. It seems equally clear to me; that if my doctor considers this, and chooses the less dangerous form of delivery; it is at the very least reasonable (if not the obviously the more prudent) measure for him to take.

This is the decision the victims of Edwards' lawsuits made, in 1985. Even if they were in error; there is no malice. There is certainly no obvious wrongdoing. There is no malpractice. There could at worst be; an honest mistake.
(Though we now know, there wasn't even that).

By 1995, the scientific evidence was quite clear that no improvement in CP incidence had resulted from a huge spike in cesarean deliveries. This is a simple matter of FACT. Didn't stop Edwards & Co, from making millions from screwing innocent doctors . Yes, I know, not all doctors are innocent by virtue of being doctors… but seriously… don't they get the benefit of the doubt when the majority of scientists in the know agree with their decisions?

Surely, they should, right? The unfortunate truth is that our legal system has a soft spot in that we rely on ordinary citizens who, through no fault of their own, have a soft spot for tragic victims and especially babies (I most certainly do, too). The other unfortunate truth (in this circumstance) is; human greed. Now there are those extraordinary people, like probably nimh and Soz… who would never knowingly compromise their principles for any amount of money. There are those on the other side of the coin that would sell their own mother (or baby) for material gain.

John Edwards chose to make it his life's work to screw over doctors, for doing their job. The 1985 science is proof that it isn't because he should; but rather because a weakness in our system showed he could. By 1995, he had earned enough to provide for his family, showed his brilliance was more than up to the task if he needed more, and still chose to continue screwing presumably innocent doctors for money.

In 2004, at about the same time he was still defending his shameful past with nonsensical medical myths, that had already been thoroughly debunked; one of his successors earned over $30,000,000 using the same shameless strategy that he pioneered. Who do you suppose pays for that in the end?

His legacy so far is: doctors (and guess who pays them) cheated out of Billions of dollars, millions of unnecessary scars for women (who knows how many unnecessary dangerous complications) and not one iota of change in the incidence of Cerebral Palsy. 500% increase in cesarean delivery, do in part to the John Edwards system of reading fetal heart monitors, without one iota of improvement.

Now granted, he also went after other "bad guys", like suing the Red Cross 3 times (we all know what a bastardly organization that is), but seriously:

A man who can lie, straight faced, in 2004 about his clearly disgusting past (pretending he doesn't know what the vast majority of experts he ever interviewed did) convincingly enough to convince nimh he's a good guy… () should not be considered for president.

Nimh; what pray tell, makes you think you can believe any of the BS he's decided to sell the American public? How can you think, for one moment, that such a man couldn't convincingly tell you absolutely anything he wants? (Like, what he thinks Americans who think like you would like to hear, for instance?)

Granted, I don't really know him either, but I'll tell you this: If he spent 30 minutes or 30 months explaining something and I agreed with him completely, and you spent 10 seconds telling me it's BS and you'd explain later; I'd believe you. Believe that. It is a simple matter of integrity. You have it. He does not.

If Robert's defense of his possible motives weren't overly idealistic; Edwards himself would have been explaining it the same way by 2004. But he wasn't… and still isn't. He's still playing the big bad unknown corporation Vs. the victimized baby, despite the FACT science has clearly demonstrated his error.



Oops… I meant to leave that alone for now, really I did. I'm too tired now… but I'll read your Giuliani links soon… and like I said; if he's half as bad as Edwards; I'll make it vividly clear I think he's a scumbag too. (Notice, that's my first use of the term ?'scumbag' in this post. I do hope my gentler demeanor is more palatable… and that subsequently more folks won't go out of their way to avoid absorbing the facts I've now repeatedly presented and commented on.)

Happy New Year!

Okay, Nimh…

I just finished the OxyContin story, and see absolutely no wrongdoing whatsoever. IMHO, OxyContin should be sitting next to aspirin at the local pharmacy and available to adults without a prescription. It is a shame that some fools abuse it, just as it's a shame that some fools abuse other forms of heroin. None of which are my problem, my business or any excuse for Purdue to have been swindled out of $634,500,000 by the DEA.
Dead Kids Vs. Rich Guys from another perspective; but Giuliani was on the right side of right. The guilty person in the death of each of those kids, assuming anyone is guilty; He who illegally sold it to them. That's it. NOT the manufacturer.

Qatar ties: More than a little disturbing. I am not familiar with the "thecarpetbaggerreport", so I would be interested in hearing attempts at rebuttal… before passing judgment. Unless you can back the allegation with a more conventional source.

Same goes for scoop on Hank Asher's software company. "The carpetbaggerreport" is damning indeed… but I'd like to see the wrongdoing pointed out by a more conventional source.

I will rescind all support for Giuliani if you, or anyone can prove he really did business with the guy who protected KSM? Only a scumbag would do that.

This certainly didn't hold the public attention for long, which, of course, is exactly how insurance companies like CIGNA get away with this sort of thing. The Sarkisyan family's attorney was supposed to sue CIGNA, but I haven't heard a word about this in the news since the beginning of the year.