posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:38 PM
Couple of things here just to play devils advocate. No rants about Im in bed with the insurance companies etc either. There are realities that are
getting lost in the sensationalism here.
1) The insurance company should have simply allowed it because of the potiental for bad press. Or not reversed itself at the last minute
2) Was it resonable to deny the transplant?: I have been a PICU and RNTS for 13 years now and work in a major if not THE pediatric transplant center
in the US so I have alot of experience with this subject matter.
3)The child in question was very very sick and had an iffy prognosis because of her leukemia. The sad part of the matter is that even if she had
gotten the transplant she probably would have died. I asked one of our transplant doctors this very question and he agreed that it would have been
iffy and would have required a meeting of the ethics board to see if they would even attempt to list such a patient let alone transplant them.
In that light the procedure was indeed experimental and had at best a remote chance of sucess. There also would have been victem had she gotten the
That victem would have been the next recipient on the donor list. That organ would be unavalible and most likely the whole exersize may
have been futile.
4) What about UCLA? Procedures like that can go on even before the issue of payment is resolved. Happens all the time and in fact a system called CCS
exists in California to help pay for the care of such critcally ill children. The matter is that UCLA Transplant Team wanted to do the surgery because
it would have generated media attention for thier program and untold academic research oppurtunities. On such iffy procedures reputations are made and
carrers ensured. Why didn't UCLA bite the bullet? Because in all likelyhood UCLA did the same cost analysis and said NO much like CIGNA did. Where is
the critisim of UCLA? Most major medical centers (UCLA is one of them) have funds and endowments set aside for this type of scenario. Why didn't they
This is a very very complex issue and when you throw children intot he mix, its gets even more complicated and emotional. There is a viceral reaction
when kids are involved. However, to simply blame CIGNA in this matter is at best naive. Clearly before we can vilify this company more information
needs to be brought to light.