In our client’s case, Conseco continues to insist that her care does not meet her policy terms.

It appears that Conseco will not pay benefits because Claire no longer lives in a home similar to the one she resided at when she bought the policy, even though the word “home” is never defined in the policy.

Ironically, in July 2008, Conseco increased Claire’s premium payments because “[w]ith the introduction of assisted living facilities and adult day care, and the growth of home health care providers, consumers now have more options for receiving assistance than ever before. As a result, more insured’s are now using benefits and the cost of providing those benefits has increased.” Claire began paying almost $6600 a year, up from an initial premium of $470 a year when the she purchased the policy in 1990. Claire and others like her began paying for services Conseco now alleges they were never entitled to.

That sounds like insurance bad faith to us.

Unfortunately, U.S. News hasn't yet delved deep enough into the issue. The fact is that Ms. Krumpotich, and far too many others often must engage in protracted and nonsensical negotiations, and even litigation, in order to try and get claims paid. For the elderly and infirm, this is often an insurmountable challenge. A policy can look good on paper, but its value may be artificial. All we can say is read your policy carefully, research the company, and talk to others about their experience before paying for a benefit that may never materialize.

Members of both the Senate and House of Representatives support the act, which is voluntary and requires payment into the plan for five years before a participant is entitled to receive benefits. The CLASS Act is also controversial.

Proponents, particularly those who lobby for the elderly and disabled, praise the act because it allows people the option to remain in their homes, paying for in-home caregivers without depleting the resources and energy of family members. Opponents believe the act won’t pay for itself and will require a government bailout to remain functional.

We believe the discourse about long-term care insurance – whether through the government plan or private insurance – is a necessary discussion to alert this country about a very important aspect of planning for the future. Whether the CLASS Act is the right solution, and whether it will even survive the House, remains to be seen.

Either way, it's our opinion that for the time being insurers need to reformulate their offerings and claims paying practices in order that people can obtain and afford, and then realize the benefits they need.

This case is significant because it is the first district court decision decided after the recent Ninth Circuit case of Montour v. Hartford Acc. & Life Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 933 (9th Cir., 2009), wherein the Ninth Circuit clarified how a trial court should review claims decision by an insurer.

In our client’s case, the district court found that Standard’s decision to deny benefits “was tainted by its financial interest” and cited the following as evidence:
• Standard neglected to advise the plaintiff of what type evidence to provide to support her claim. The federal law governing workplace disability plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, mandates that plan administrators tell insureds what specific information they must submit. To request mere “medical evidence” or “information you believe is relevant” does not comply with the letter of the law. The administrator must tell the claimant what information the administrator considers relevant.
• Standard used the wrong occupational criteria. This is significant because our client’s plan language included the “own occupation” criteria rather than the “any sedentary occupation” criteria Standard relied on. In our client’s case, that means she is entitled to benefits because her illness prevented her from performing the requirements of a job she held for nearly a dozen years. Whether she could work at another job was irrelevant under the terms of her plan.
• Standard denied our client’s claim without full investigation, neglecting to wait for complete answers about our client’s disability from its own medical examiners and neglecting to ask its examining physicians the necessary questions to document our client’s illness. In particular, the court found that Dr. Elias Dickerman was not adequately trained by Standard – even though he received more that $200,000 annually from Standard since 2006 for his medical diagnoses – and that he made errors in his reading of our client’s medical records.

The court determined that our client’s policy should be reinstated and awarded her all her unpaid benefits.

If you have been denied insurance benefits for similar reasons or had benefits delayed with excuses that seem in error, contact us right away to find out how we can help you restore your benefits. Call (818) 886-2525 or log on to www.kantorlaw.net.

Canadian citizen Nathalie Blanchard was merely following her doctor’s suggestion that she spend time with friends and vacation in a sunny climate as a cure for depression when her sick-leave benefits from her employer-provided insurance were abruptly terminated. Nathalie made the fatal error of posting photos of herself having fun on Facebook. Her insurer discovered the photos, determined she was no longer depressed and told her to return to work. Although the insurer told the Associated Press that it did not solely rely on the Facebook photos in making its decision, it neglected to mention what other sources – such as sound medical evidence -- it did rely on. Nathalie is appealing the denial. See “Canadian Woman Loses Benefits Over Facebook Photo,” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_re_ca/cn_canada_facebook_insurance.

This latest news article illustrates the level of scrutiny ill and injured people typically encounter from their insurers when they are unfortunate enough to actually need the benefits they’ve paid for. Their lives become open books where even the most innocent of activities become an insurance inspector’s evidence of suspected fraud.

Here’s our sad but true advice to Americans receiving disability benefits: What you post or print on social media sites will be discovered by your insurer and interpreted in the light most unfavorable to your disability claim – even if you are only following doctor’s orders.

Gleckman predicts that significantly more people will purchase government LTC coverage than those who currently purchase private insurance, but it still won’t be enough to solve the nation’s long-term care challenges. To increase purchasers, Gleckman suggests the following:

First, make coverage mandatory and require all major employers to offer it. If employees are allowed to opt out, impose tough penalties on both employers and workers who don’t participate.

Second, do more to encourage young employees to buy coverage. Determine premium amounts by age at enrollment and never increase (or only moderately increase) premiums, while providing more benefits as policyholders age. That way, workers would enroll while they are young and healthy to avoid costly premiums when they need coverage.

Third, the government could give employers financial incentives to match worker contributions.

Let's see what, if anything, the ultimate health care bill will contain on the Long Term Care question.

Lisa Girion of the Los Angeles Times reports that a provision of federal healthcare legislation under consideration could harm consumer protections in states that have strong laws that both protect policyholders’ rights to insurance coverage for certain health treatments and the ability to appeal coverage denials. “State Health Laws at Risk,” Los Angeles Times, November 16, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mandates16-2009nov16,0,2437457.story. Healthcare overhaul bills in both houses allow insurers from other states to sell insurance in California without being subject to the state’s tougher enforcement mechanisms.

“California mandates require insurers to cover home healthcare, bone density screening for osteoporosis, in vitro fertilization and mastectomy. Mandates also cover certain providers, such as chiropractors, and conditions, such as autism. If insurers are allowed to sell under the laws of other states, they might be able to offer policies that do not include those benefits,” Girion writes.

Other California protections potentially at risk include prompt claims payment laws. In California, a policyholder has the right to appeal an insurer’s refusal to pay for a particular treatment. Other states may not offer the same protections.

Proposed federal healthcare legislation remains controversial. While on one hand it offers more competition and lower premiums for California consumers, on the other hand it could undermine gains consumers have achieved in California.

It’s always a good idea to read a policy before purchasing any kind of insurance. If something seems questionable or you don’t understand certain provisions, ask for explanations and help. Don’t sign any policy until you are convinced you will get what you pay for or are afforded the right to appeal when you don’t.

Insurance companies that routinely misunderstand eating disorders should pay attention to California Health and Safety Code Section 1254.5, which provides a refreshing perspective on the nature and treatment of eating disorders. In its findings under Section 1254.5, the California Legislature states, “[T]he disease of eating disorders is not simply medical or psychiatric but involves biological, sociological, psychological, family, medical, and spiritual components. . . . the treatment of eating disorders is multifaceted, and like the treatment of chemical dependency, does not fall neatly into either the traditional medical or psychiatric milieu.”

This legislative comment reflects what we find in our law practice representing clients suffering from eating disorders whose treatment should be covered by their health insurance. We often explain to insurance companies, mediators, and judges how residential treatment for an eating disorder involves intensive treatment of the psychological mindset that perpetuates the eating disorder. Treatment is not limited to the mental aspects; it also involves frequent monitoring of the disorder’s physical symptoms through blood work and weight gain. Education on nutrition and exercise also gives patients the tools to stay in recovery when discharged from treatment facilities.

Combined with Mental Health Parity Acts, such as California’s codified in Insurance Code Section 10144.5, the Section 1254.5 language supports our arguments that treatment for an eating disorder is truly multi-faceted and often residential treatment is the only means for conquering an eating disorder.

Section 1254.5 will not create coverage where it didn’t exist or force an insurance company to pay a claim. But it can increase awareness and recognition in the legal forum when presented to courts and insurance companies.

-- Elizabeth Green

This discovery provides hope for researchers because if the retrovirus – part of the same family as the HIV virus that causes AIDS – definitively proves to cause chronic fatigue, the disease might be effectively treated with antiretroviral drugs. Currently, no treatment or cure is available for chronic fatigue syndrome. Researchers also believe that they can create a blood test to determine if a patient is infected with XMRV virus, much the same way a blood test can determine HIV.

Chronic fatigue patients are also hopeful that their symptoms – severe fatigue and body aches – will now be taken seriously by doctors and insurers. Because chronic fatigue can only be diagnosed by ruling out other illnesses, some in the medical community refuse to treat chronic fatigue as a legitimate disease or attribute it to a psychiatric disorder. As a result, most health and disability insurers are skeptical about providing benefits for chronic fatigue sufferers who are too ill to work. Many are accused of “malingering,” that is, lying about or exaggerating their symptoms. Now the medical community may have valid research to back up a diagnosis of chronic fatigue.

The study is considered significant for two other reasons: First, the XMRV virus has been linked to prostate cancer. Second, about 4 percent of healthy people studied were carriers of the XMRV virus. According to the Wall Street Journal, that means that “10 million people in the U.S. and hundreds of million people around the world are infected with a virus that is already strongly associated with two diseases.”

The National Cancer Institute has authorized more research to find out if the virus is linked to any other diseases.

Dr. Judy Mikovits, one of the lead authors of the XMRV paper, told the Wall Street Journal, “Just like you cannot have AIDS without HIV, I believe you won’t be able to find a case of chronic-fatigue syndrome without XMRV.”

We have seen it time and time again… insurers downplaying the symptoms of CFS and even accusing our clients of being untruthful about their inability to function normally, all because there was no “objective evidence” of their Chronic Fatigue. Hopefully, this will all change soon as more is learned about XMRV. Has your insurer refused to consider your diagnosis of chronic fatigue seriously? Kantor & Kantor can help.

While that statement is enough to make sensible people wary of the deep pockets behind tort reform movements, Hiltzik clears the confusion and makes a very good case about why limiting an injured victim’s ability to use the legal system to be made whole is not the great fix for rising medical costs insurers and many politicians claim.

The argument for tort reform, as Hiltzik explains, is that plaintiff lawyers are filing too many “frivolous” lawsuits and claiming millions of undeserved dollars. Doctors are ordering unnecessary tests to ensure they don’t misdiagnose or fail to diagnose something that could end up in court. As a result, medical costs escalate.

“The truth is that medical liability isn’t a big driver of health costs overall,” Hiltzik writes. “[T]he cost of malpractice litigation, in court and through defensive medicine, [is] roughly 2% to 3% of all U.S. healthcare spending.”

In California, since 1975, the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) has capped recovery for pain and suffering to $250,000. That’s next to nothing when to compared to what plaintiffs can receive in other types of cases. Lawyers’ fees are also limited.

But did MICRA help consumers? According to a 2004 Rand study, the MICRA caps don’t amount to a fair distribution of justice. Victims of medical errors who had small economic losses but suffered major damage to their quality of life are unfairly compensated. Women are disproportionately affected. The MICRA cap isn’t adjusted for inflation. In today’s dollars, the award has the same purchasing power as $62,000 did in 1975. And the most unsettling result of all is that may unjustly injured people won’t even pursue a case because the award may not even cover the litigation cost.

The big MICRA winners are insurers, who last year paid out only 17 cents of every dollar they collected on medical malpractice insurance. And carriers don’t even have the good sense to be humble about it.

“At American Physicians Capital,” writes Hiltzik, “claims were falling so fast in 2007 that its chief executive publicly compared his underemployed claims managers to ‘the Maytag repairman.’ The next time you find yourself nodding in assent while some politician carries on about tort reform, remember that its benefits will go to characters like this.”

Clearly, this only reinforces what we’ve been saying all along: If you want real reform, start with the perpetrators, not the victims.

The diagnosed brain abnormalities directly correlated with the severity of the disease, as reported by the women on questionnaires they filled out in advance of the scan. The results of the study disprove the widely held belief that fibromyalgia is caused by depression. The study found that the brain abnormalities were “independent of anxiety and depression status.”

The study follows news earlier this year that a Stockton, Calif., surgeon patented a process to objectively determine the presence of chronic pain. See, “Surgeon’s Patent Removes the Subjectivity from Chronic Pain.”

Dr. Robert England uses an MRI image to compare the brain image of a person in chronic pain receiving stimulation such as a finger squeeze or mild electric shot to the brain image of a healthy person undergoing the same stimulation.

For people with fibromyalgia, England said his studies showed 13 areas of pain when the patient's thumb was squeezed. When a pain-free person's thumb was squeezed, only one area of pain appeared in the brain.

When these tests will be widely available – and whether insurance health plans will accept them as valid documentation – is still unknown. But they are encouraging developments for people with fibromyalgia who are often accused of fabricating the severity of their illnesses so that the insurer can deny disability or health benefits.

In “Uninsured, Unafraid,” health insurance reporter J. Duncan Moore Jr., listed the many reasons he opts to remain uninsured. Moore has written about the insurance industry long enough, he says, to learn “to love the delectable insurance lingo … that makes normal people feel as if they’re stirring concrete with their eyelashes.”

Moore’s most compelling argument about why he’s uninsured, and the one he describes as “the single most terrifying aspect of health insurance,” is the practice of rescission, that is, carriers revoking coverage after the policyholders gets sick and incurs medical expenses.

Moore writes: “The industry’s continued use of rescissions to evade bills that companies don’t wish to honor eviscerates the value of health insurance. To a person like me, who is on the margin, rescissions are the deciding factor between purchasing and not purchasing insurance. … [A]s long as the insurers can use medical underwriting to exclude poor risks and redline preexisting conditions -- sometimes retroactively -- insurance isn’t worth what we’re being asked to pay.”

The second article, “When a Policy is Clear as Mud,” by Harris Meyer, follows the saga of Anthem Blue Cross policyholder Neil Dukas as he attempts to receive treatment for a knee injury. His difficulties arose because he couldn’t get clear, reliable information from his insurer about pre-authorization for procedures and tests and reimbursements for his out-of-pocket costs for an MRI. Eight months after his injury, Anthem Blue Cross approved his MRI, but Dukas is still waiting for reimbursement.

Meyer quotes former health insurance communications executive Wendell Potter: “There are many ways insurers keep their customers in the dark and purposely mislead them,” he said. “Insurers make it nearly impossible to understand -- or even to obtain -- information [consumers] need.”

Some insurers insist they are attempting to “step up” their communications efforts so their customers can better understand insurance jargon, writes Meyer in a companion article “Goodbye, ‘Insurancespeak’ – Hello, Clear Language.” http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-hew-insurance-jargon-changes21-2009sep21,0,893422.story.

We would not advocate remaining uninsured. A catastrophic injury to you or family member would either bankrupt you, or keep you from getting the medical services you need. On the other hand, paying premiums only to find the coverage rug pulled out from under you could have the very same effect. THESE are the issues Congress should be tackling, instead of the noisy, wholly ineffective debate about whether a “public option” is going to turn our Country into a socialist regime.

The focus of the campaign is to highlight why long-term care insurance is such a necessity. Medicare will NOT cover most of the long-term care services the majority if us will need. Right now, long-term care is the only safety net for most people. In the highly unlikely event long-term care coverage becomes part of federal healthcare reform, that option may still not pay for the quality of services that a private plan would.

We support the LTC Guild’s public awareness campaign.

For more information about the “3 in 4 need more campaign, log on to http://ltcguild.ning.com/page/long-term-care-insurance-for.

[090916]

But the real reason LTC reform won’t happen is indifference, not opposition Gleckman says. “Overwhelmed by the passionate, high-stakes debate over health reform, many lawmakers remain reluctant to even confront long-term care issues. They are making a major mistake by failing to recognize that the chronically ill need a full range of care that does not end at hospital discharge or when they leave their physician’s office. An elderly widow suffering from Parkinson’s or a young man struggling with multiple sclerosis doesn’t distinguish between personal care and medical treatment. For them, it is all essential care. Congress needs to recognize this, but, at least for now, the odds that it will do so in 2009 remain long.”

So for right now, the best option is still private LTC insurance, or, in some cases, employer-provided LTC insurance coverage, which could be your only safety net if you long term care becomes essential due to age or infirmity. (090914)

As part of his Wednesday night speech, the president said the legislation he seeks would guarantee insurance to consumers, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions, as well as other protections. “As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most," he added. Obama: Time for Bickering Is Over,” Associated Press.

Even though the bulk of the healthcare debate tends to focus on the issue of whether our country could support both private and public health insurance options – we believe it can – the real truth about the way the insurance industry does business cannot be over-emphasized.

The president has it right when he says health insurers must be held accountable. At the very least, any federal health care legislation should mandate that sick people get the coverage they pay for without delays or denials, time-consuming procedures, and claims adjusters forced to be more concerned with limiting benefits than caring for their customers.

Although legislators are showing concern that the debate has become “uncivil,” real progress toward insurance reform necessarily requires a vigorous airing of the issues. We applaud those lawmakers who refuse to bend to the insurance industry’s “whims.”

Last year, the governor vetoed a similar bill, but that was before reporting, led by the LA Times, documented how widespread the practice, known as rescission, really is. The Department of Insurance, responding with outrage over the unethical practice, is proposing its own solution to the problem.

In any event, we think it is unsavory to use sick people as political bargaining chips. Our state needs lots of work and another stalemate in Sacramento won’t help consumers. The insurance industry is likely out celebrating once again.

[090909]