Articles Posted in Eating Disorder Claims

Founded in 2013 by former Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.), The Kennedy Forum focuses on advancing evidence-based practices, policies, and programming in mental health and substance use issues. This is achieved through promoting public discourse in health and addiction issues, ensuring equal coverage for patients living with mental health and/or substance use disorders; and advancing prevention and treatment throughout the entire continuum of the healthcare delivery system. The Kennedy Forum’s collaborative partnerships help to foster greater provider accountability, integration and coordination, cutting-edge technologies, and brain fitness and health. The Kennedy Forum’s most recent step forward in improving the lives of individuals living with mental illness and addiction, and promoting behavioral health for all is the Parity Registry. To learn more about The Kennedy Forum, visit https://thekennedyforum.org/.

Insurance companies continue to violate the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, which requires them to treat diseases of the brain, such as clinical depression and opioid addiction, the same way they treat illnesses of the body, such cancer and heart disease. The Parity Registry is a powerful tool to help families fight back. The Parity Registry is the only resource in the United States where consumers, family members, providers, case managers, and legal advocates can:

  • Learn how to file an appeal with their health plan.

When you think of what lawyers do for a living, the first thing you probably think of is arguing over a case in front of a judge.

You may be surprised to learn, then, that in the federal courts this staple of practicing law seems to be on the way out. The federal district courts – the trial courts of the federal system – are increasingly holding fewer and fewer oral arguments. Some district courts even have a standing default rule that they won’t hear oral argument on a motion unless the presiding judge explicitly asks for it.

This trend is even more accentuated in the federal circuit courts – the appellate courts of the federal system. While the Supreme Court of the United States holds oral argument in almost all of its cases, the circuit courts of appeal do not.

Mental health issues are definitely more widely spoken about in todays society. But lip service doesn’t necessarily help with the overwhelming challenges a person has to face in living with a mental illness.

Mental illness is more common than any of us would like. According to the National Institute of Mental Health there were an estimated 43.4 million adults aged 18 or older in the United States living with a mental illness in 2015. This number represented 17.9% of all U.S. adults. (See https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/any-mental-illness-ami-among-us-adults.shtml).

The National Alliance on Mental Illness reports the following statistics regarding mental illness rates in the United States:

As you know, churches occupy a special place in the law. For example, the First Amendment bars the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and churches, indeed almost all religioous institutions, get special tax treatment from the IRS.

However, you may not know that this distinction can also affect your employee benefits. Almost all employee benefits are governed by a federal law called ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). This law provides various protections, including imposing a fiduciary duty on your employer to act in your best interests in administering your benefits.

However, if you are a beneficiary of an employee benefit plan established by a church (or other religious organization), your benefits are not governed by ERISA, because ERISA has an exemption for “church plans.” (There is also an exemption for government plans.) As a result, you may lose protections under ERISA if you are a church employee.

Kantor & Kantor is happy to announce that it has won an important victory in New Jersey on behalf of a client with bulimia nervosa. The decision touches upon issues that we see too often in health insurance denials and long-term disability denials.

Our client, whose name is being kept anonymous to protect her privacy, began experiencing symptoms of her eating disorder when she was only eight years old. The eating disorder was left untreated for ten years. When she entered a residential treatment facility for her bulimia in September 2011, the facility submitted a claim for benefits to her insurance company, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey.

In a series of concurrent reviews, Horizon and its behavioral health managed care partner, Magellan Behavioral Health, paid for the first three weeks of treatment, but refused to pay past that date, contending that the treatment she was receiving was no longer “medically necessary.”

There may come a time in your life when you will need to consult with a lawyer – whether it be good news or bad news. We routinely speak with individuals who have had life, health, and disability claims denied by their insurance companies. Understandably, this is a very difficult time for the individuals who call us. We understand that, and try to make the process simple…but we need your help.

As lawyers, we are well-versed in the practice of law, but we rely on the information from our clients to steer us in the right direction and guide each case. It takes TEAMWORK to get a successful outcome for our clients.

Here are a few tips for talking to your lawyer and sharing with them what they need to know.

For over 25 years, I have been representing individuals who have had life, health, and disability claims denied by their insurance companies.   I have represented over 3,000 people.   What is so disheartening to me is that I hear from clients again and again that they “almost gave up before calling” me. They tell me they were beaten down by the process, convinced their insurance company must be right, or that they didn’t know there were lawyers who specialized in handling their kind of case on a contingent basis.   While sometimes the client HAS waited too long for us to help them, usually my law firm, Kantor & Kantor, is able to step in and successfully resolve their claim.

However, I wonder just how many DO give up unnecessarily.   While my view of the insurance industry may appear very cynical, I am 100% convinced that the industry employs a strategy of denying as many claims as possible in the hope that claimants will just give up and go away.   I could write pages upon pages of stories about clients who had almost given up, but for whom we were able to obtain benefits with nothing more than a well written letter.   It sometimes seems like the insurance company is daring their insured to challenge the denial, or to get a lawyer.   If they do, the insurance company will reconsider its denial. If not, the denial will stand and the insurance company will keep the benefits which are rightfully yours.

In the last month, I have obtained over a $1,000,000 in total benefits for several clients who separately told me that they had seriously considered giving up before calling my firm.   This led to me to come back to a familiar thought, which was to wonder about all the people who did simply give up.   I decided to write this blog in the hope that maybe ONE insured might read it, and decide not to give up.   I am not writing this to get business. I have more than I need.   I practice in California, but this blog might be read by someone in Florida, or Illinois, or New Jersey, for example. If it is, and you were considering giving up trying to get your benefits, I am not suggesting you call me.   Go on the internet, or call your State Bar, and find an experienced attorney in your State.   The worst thing that happens, is that no one will take your case  —  but what if they will?

One of the first questions we ask clients calling about the denial of medical benefits is whether the provider (i.e. hospital, treatment center, doctor) was an in-network or ­out-of-network provider. Some insurers use different terms such as participating provider or contracted provider. These terms all mean that the insurance company, or its claims administrator, has negotiated with the provider for a certain rate of reimbursement. Insurance companies negotiate these rates of reimbursement with certain providers so that there is an expectation – from both the insurance company and the provider – of the amount that will be paid for medical services.

For patients who are seeking benefits for medical services, a provider’s network status is important because it affects how much the patient will pay out of pocket for treatment. When patients use an out-of-network provider, there is an additional coinsurance, or charge, that patients must pay out of pocket. This coinsurance can range from 20% to 50% of the eligible charges. Eligible charges are a lesser amount determined by any number of factors in the insurance policy, such as Medicare rates. So when patients receive bills from the provider, or statements from the insurance company, which show that only a fraction of the out-of-network provider’s charges were paid, the reason is that the eligible charge was determined to be less than the billed charges and a coinsurance applied. This can dramatically reduce what the insurance company will pay for an out-of-network claim.

Here are some tips for reducing out-of-pocket medical expenses:

Trumpcare, the Republicans’ proposed plan to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — also known as “Obamacare” — will cut mental health and addiction treatment for 1.3 million people, just as the country is struggling to cope with an epidemic of opiate addiction. The Washington Post reported on March 9, 2017, that House Republicans admitted under questioning by Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) that their ACA repeal-and-replace plan would remove a requirement to offer substance abuse and mental-health coverage that’s now used by at least 1.3 million Americans.

Substance abuse and mental-health services are among the “essential benefits” states are required to provide under the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid, a program that provides health-care coverage to those who cannot afford it. As the article explained, if states opt out of providing those benefits, Medicaid recipients would not only lose coverage for mental-health care, but also coverage for care aimed at addressing substance abuse treatment, a critical area of care given the current drug overdose epidemic many states are dealing with. According to estimates by health-care economists, about 1.3 million Americans’ sole access to these services is through the ACA.

 

[o3odj]
Contact Information