Who are the real Villains in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.

Ever hear the expression, Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. In the case of the well publicized death of a 17 year old from LA who while being treated for Leukemia went into Liver failure and was “denied” a transplant by CIGNA Insurance, that appears have happened. I won’t rehash the entire story as it is all over the media and has entered the health care debate at State and National levels. One candidate, John Edwards, has made it part of his campaign and advocates of “Single Payer” which is code for “Government run and taxpayer financed Health care” are using Nataline’s case as their poster child for the cause. The father appeared at a rally the other day and was quoted as saying “CIGNA killed Nataline”. The family has retained infamous looser lawyer, Mark Geragos, in their almost certain lawsuit against CIGNA. He and others are requesting that CIGNA execs be charged with murder.

Maggie Mahar has written one of the most balanced pieces on this issue titled “Bad cases make bad law” its an eye opener for those who haven't looked at this in depth.

“The fact that Nataline’s case had gone sour on her doctors’ watch might have made them less than objective. I’m not suggesting that the doctors were worried about a malpractice suit: following bone marrow transplants, patients are very susceptible to complications. There is no indication that the physicians caring for her did anything wrong. Nevertheless, at least one prominent palliative care specialist has told me that sometimes she has to protect patients from surgeons who want to try to repair a failed procedure —with yet another surgery. “They can’t bear the failure—they want to make it right. This is what they have been trained to do.” But they are not necessarily thinking about what is best for the patient”.

Two things stood out to me in this story. Those being were, is this patient even a candidate for a liver transplant and if she was why did not UCLA do the operation rather than wait for insurance approval. CIGNA had approved her bone marrow transplant which was unsuccessful. UCLA certainly did not need CIGNA’s approval for the transplant operation, only for the payment. Looking over the exclusion criteria for liver transplants from 2 other facilities that have good reputations in the transplant area I noted that this patient was not a candidate. Sanford who’s criteria is listed here and California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco who’s criteria is listed here both exclude patients with non-hepatic malignancies. I could not find UCLA’s criteria in any searches.

I nominate the following as the Villains in this case

1. UCLA medical center for raising this families hopes when she would not of been a candidate for the operation at most transplant centers. They get a double nomination for not performing the operation if they felt it could of saved this girls life. A hospital does not need approval from a 3rd party insurer to perform a lifesaving operation. Considering the narrow window of availability of livers and this patients grave condition If UCLA felt she could have benefited they should have performed the operation immediately upon the availability of a donor liver and appealed the denial. Instead UCLA asked the family for a $75000 deposit to do the procedure which they did not have. Most appeals eventually end up getting paid. Even if they were not paid UCLA could have performed the case as charity care and been the good guys. UCLA is infamous for its excessive end of life care with no better results than more conservative like institutions. This is likely being driven by their excess bed capacity and a high percentage of specialist. Its all well documented here in this study by Drartmouth University.

2. The organizations promoting single payer who are exploiting this case and the family for the cause. In particular, one that I am a member of, the California Nurses Association. They have done a lot for nurses at the bargaining table and getting Nursing Ratios but their political agenda is way to Micheal Moorish. I cannot remember CNA ever soliciting its members on whether they even support single payer before devoting our dues money to that cause. Emails to their leadership expressing an opposite point of view are ignored. CNA members are some of the highest paid nurses in the country. That would not of happened under single payer where government sets the reimbursement.

3. Politicians and slimball lawyers led by slimball in chief John Edwards. Politicians do not normally piss me off, Edwards is an exception. He made his millions by suing OB doctors in cerebral palsy cases for not doing c-sections. He used junk science and courtroom theatrics imitating a fetus stuck inside the mother yelling to get out to sway juries. Note to Edwards, most recent research has shown that CP is not related to delayed C-sections but lets not let facts get in the way of a good story, especially when big money is at stake. Edwards, the champion of the poor, is well known for giving speeches on poverty in America for 50,000 a pop. One recently for none other than the University of California at Davis. You’d think the University of California would have better things to do with taxpayers and students money, apparently not.

I hate to be in a position defending an Insurance company. I generally despise them and as Maggie Mahar states

“Meanwhile there are so many clear-cut problems in our for-profit private insurance industry that should be investigated in a court of law. I would like to see states take insurers to court for the way they “cherry-pick” their customers, shunning the sick, and raising premiums on customers who become seriously ill. Often, insurers scour their records looking for some scrap of evidence that the patients’ illness may have been caused by a pre-existing condition. Insurers also write policies in such a way that it is very difficult to know, for certain, what will be covered—and they advertise “super-saver” policies that contain so many holes that they don’t even deserve to called “insurance.”

Another tip for the single payer crowd would be pick your battles. Being wrong and going public with it in such a high profile case and trying to capitalize on other peoples tragedies ruins your credibility for legitimate issues.