Join The Conversation
Don Levit
11/17/2008 01:47 PM
Brian:
Thanks so much for keeping us posted on this important event in California.
Actually, I find much fault on both sides.
First, Cindy Hailey knew that coverage extended to everyone in the family.
She did provide the husband's height and weight, although the weight was very inaccurate.
In my opinion, it is not reasonable to assume that the other medical questions did not apply to every member of the family.
If Mrs. Hailey assumed that she was the only one that had to medically qualify, and the rest were guaranteed acceptance, then that is an unreasonable assumption, in my opinion.
On the other hand, Blue Shield of California was not allowed to perform post-claims underwriting.
Admittedly, it may be difficult to determine the extent to which they did, indeed, underwrite.
According to the case, if I understand correctly, no medical history was given for the husband and the children.
It is unreasonable, in my opinion, for the insurer to assume that no medical history existed for the balance of the family, and the insurer should have inquired at that time.
I find it extremely interesting that Blue Shield may have intentionally not responded to the husband's reported medical condition in 2001, because the claim did not justify investigating further.
Only when the future claim exceeded the premiums paid, did Blue Shield get nervous.
I had no idea this behavior occurred at the insurer level.
Don Levit
Post A Comment
Articles
- Posted on 09/24/2010 Testimony of Judge William Acker Before Senate Finance Committee
- Posted on 09/18/2010 DeBofsky Senate Testimony
- Posted on 01/05/2010 Preliminary Injunction in C/HCA, et. al., v. Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utah
News
- Posted on 10/05/2005 Welcome to the Website of Brian S. King
- Posted on 10/05/2005 Visit Healthcare Recovery Solutions Online