Insurance Company Blacklists - No Surprise

I read a story in the newspaper yesterday that made me choke on my hot chocolate, even though it was about something that I have suspected existed anyway.

Insurance companies have blacklists—confidential information that contains all the conditions for which you are automatically denied coverage.

But in our hearts, we knew that.

We’ve all heard stories of people who have been denied health insurance—maybe more than once—because of various health problems like a history of kidney stones, or because the applicant is taking a drug for diabetes, high blood pressure or depression.

I have a friend in his late 50s who hikes miles at high altitudes, cycles about 100 miles a week and does heavy yard work, but he takes a drug for high lipids. His family has those genetics. He’s probably 10 times healthier that most men his age, but he’s been denied insurance coverage several times. He finally found a policy for $700 a month. He’s not anxious to grow older, but paying this much for health insurance has him counting the days until he qualifies for Medicare.

Even scarier are the “data-mining companies” that store “information about your health, including detailed usage of prescription drugs.” These companies then sell this information to insurance companies. Is this legal? And how do they get this information?

Directives to agents and salespersons on withholding coverage are often available on insurance company Web sites. People more clever than I have broken through the computer system barriers and discovered the blacklist manuals, usually called something like “Guide to Medical Underwriting.”

One company executive, when pressed, refused to talk to the reporter (John Dorschner of the MCT News Service). Instead, the company produced a statement that, paraphrased, says that “we follow industry standards, don’t break any laws and won’t talk to you about this subject.”

The bottom line is that health insurance companies are in business to make money. That means their goal is to pay out as little as possible, and that’s in direct opposition to subscribers’/patients' needs.

I know I’ve posed these questions before, but they bear repeated consideration:
Should such enterprise exist at all?
Should anyone make a profit by denying needed health care?
Should 10 cents to 30 cents of every dollar spent on health insurance go for overhead and profit of the company that sells it?
Should CEOs be making millions while 47 million people (and counting) have no health insurance?

If we were to have some sort of universal health care system, it wouldn’t mean that everyone could have everything. We might not want to pay for heart transplants and experimental surgeries, but everyone should be able to receive a certain level of health care, with an emphasis on prevention, and health coverage shouldn’t be connected with employment.

Tell us what you think.