pre-existing conditions specifics

[oliverdickens]

They can deny you for anything and have in my case.

I have been denied because I had a high blood pressure reading at my annual pyhsical 140/87, it is normally 130/80's by have white coat syndrome, and my cholesterol was 202. I take meds for the Cholesterol and now well into low 160.

Still denied by BCBS.

Other than that, very healthy, thank goodness. I am 57 so locking me out due to age is my thought.

Good luck on you search for insurance

[dgoldenz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oliverdickens They can deny you for anything and have in my case. I have been denied because I had a high blood pressure reading at my annual pyhsical 140/87, it is normally 130/80's by have white coat syndrome, and my cholesterol was 202. I take meds for the Cholesterol and now well into low 160. Still denied by BCBS. Other than that, very healthy, thank goodness. I am 57 so locking me out due to age is my thought. Good luck on you search for insurance

Although 140/87 is pretty high, a follow-up test showing a lower reading would have likely gotten you approved. Sometimes it's a combination of HBP + height/weight, or a combination of ratings for HBP + cholesterol + height/weight that cause automatic denial (e.g. the 3 strikes rule). That said, BCBS is pretty lenient on that compared to other companies.

[explanade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgoldenz I think just about everyone agrees that rescission should be banned except in clear cases of fraud (such as lying about a previous heart attack/cancer/etc). The only ones fighting that are the insurance companies themselves.

I've heard people on other forums defense pre-existing conditions and rescission. Basically the right of insurers to make profits trump care for the insureds.

There's a video of anti-reform folks taunting a guy who had some condition which prevented him from standing up. He had signs about why he supported reform but they gave him a lecture about how people don't deserve care for free and threw dollar bills at him.

Some people believe that the much-publicized high double-digit premium increases by BCBS were and attempt to drive out customers whom they thought were likely to make expensive claims. Either that or incredibly clumsy political timing.

[dgoldenz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by explanade I've heard people on other forums defense pre-existing conditions and rescission. Basically the right of insurers to make profits trump care for the insureds. There's a video of anti-reform folks taunting a guy who had some condition which prevented him from standing up. He had signs about why he supported reform but they gave him a lecture about how people don't deserve care for free and threw dollar bills at him. Some people believe that the much-publicized high double-digit premium increases by BCBS were and attempt to drive out customers whom they thought were likely to make expensive claims. Either that or incredibly clumsy political timing.

There's a bad apple in every bunch. If you took a poll of Americans that thought rescission should be banned except in cases of fraud, I would bet the numbers would be well over 90% in agreement. Double-digit premium increases are nothing new, it's been happening for years....it's the 30-50% rate increases that are more out of the ordinary, but things are changing very rapidly. They didn't just single out one or two policyholders to get them to drop coverage. Rate increases must be applied across the board to all policyholders in that block of business.

I don't understand people's logic though. If you get rid of pre-existing conditions, you have an immediate 50-200% rate increase, and that's on top of any other increases that would have came along anyway. How's that any better than a 30% annual increase with what's there now? Some people seem to think the health insurance fairy will come along and sprinkle its magic insurance dust, magically giving everyone coverage and dropping premiums for all.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgoldenz If you took a poll of Americans that thought rescission should be banned except in cases of fraud, I would bet the numbers would be well over 90% in agreement.

Yes, and I wish that this was the approach they took with the HC 'reform' bills. Instead of one massive thing that you can't get enough agreement on, tackle it in chunks that are understandable and less controversial. If they did that, they probably could have passed some bills that really made a difference and had gone into effect by now. Instead, we've had a year of bickering, with a bill that doesn't bring most of the intended benefits in until 2014.

If it passes, I bet a lot of people are gonna be surprised when they can't just sign up for these benefits.

Quote:

I don't understand people's logic though. If you get rid of pre-existing conditions, you have an immediate 50-200% rate increase, and that's on top of any other increases that would have came along anyway.

I think the answer is, and I don't mean to be condescending to those people, but they just have not thought through the consequences. Denying someone for a pre-existing condition is a heart-wrenching problem, so it is easy to see why people (rightfully) get worked up about it. But it is a symptom of our current situation, and you can't fix the symptom w/o making changes to the underlying causes.

But if they did just try to 'wish it away', yes, those same people would be upset at the inevitable price increases.

-ERD50

[DWPC]

I've just been through underwriting for an individual policy with a major insurer. If your doctor filed for payment using the std code for a condition, or prescribed an Rx typically used for it within the deadline period, it will be noted as a potential pre-existing condition that the insurer can refuse to cover. To refute, you need to get the MD to write letter explaining why it shouldn't be a condition or that its a goof (...good luck with that!).