It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
NEW YORK Apr 3, 2007 (AP)— An insurer that refused to pay for a teenage boy's breast reduction surgery on the ground that it was cosmetic must reimburse his father for the operation, an appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The Supreme Court's Appellate Division decision upheld two lower court rulings that directed Group Health Inc. (GHI) to pay for the surgery because it was "medically necessary" for the boy to lead a normal life.
This is defined as enlargement of male breast(s) caused by excessive glandular breast tissue. A true excess glandular breast tissue in men is not common. There are a number of distinct causes of gynecomastia including alcoholism, failure of the testicles to produce sufficient testosterone hormone, and many medications. Bilateral gynecomastia can also be associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, renal failure treated with hemodialysis, certain cancers such as testicular cancer, and adrenal corticosteroid secreting tumors. If a male has a single enlarged breast then one must consider the possibility of a true breast tumor. Any significant asymmetry of the male breasts, especially if there is a history of recent onset of asymmetric growth, should prompt the surgeon to consider a mammogram.
Drugs Drugs that can cause gynecomastia include...
Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Should an insurer be forced to pay for something like this?