Health care when the patient has Type 1 Diabetes - echo

Does Anyone Really ‘Love’ Their Private Health Insurance?
An echo opinion article published in The New York Times

I am alive today not because of insurance companies but despite them.  By Rachel Madley

Twenty minutes after I learned I had Type 1 diabetes — after narrowly avoiding a diabetic coma — a nurse pulled my parents away from my bedside and urged them to call our insurance company immediately. If they didn’t call right away, she warned, insurance would not cover the stay. At that moment — now 10 years ago — my parents had to choose whether to comfort their sick and frightened 14-year-old daughter, or spend hours on the phone with our insurer. Of course, they left me to make those calls, and my nightmarish relationship with the insurance industry began.
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease that destroys the body’s ability to produce insulin or maintain normal blood-sugar levels. There are no days off from this illness. Without careful monitoring and daily insulin injections, Type 1 diabetics risk blindness, kidney failure and death.

On top of the full-time job of monitoring blood sugar, American diabetics and their families have to work a second shift fighting insurance companies to cover their care. Even though my parents had insurance and both worked multiple jobs, the hospital bills, insulin and supplies drove them into debt, forcing them to forgo insurance, and medical care, for themselves.

When I turned 19, I was kicked off my parents’ plan. I took out thousands of dollars in extra student loans to buy insulin and diabetes supplies. After the Affordable Care Act passed, I was able to regain insurance, a high-deductible plan that cost me hundreds of dollars for each doctor’s visit and insulin refill.

So when I hear politicians talk about how much Americans love their private health insurance, I think: Really?

I am alive today not because of insurance companies but despite them. My insulin refills have been delayed countless times, not because of medical reasons, but because of what seem to be arbitrary insurance limits and requirements to continuously document my condition, which is permanent. 

Once, my insulin refill was delayed so long that I ran out, just when the insurance office closed for a three-day weekend. I was a student, away from home, with no other way to pay for my prescription. Terrified, I rushed to the pharmacy in tears. 

Thankfully, the pharmacist took pity on me and slipped me a vial of insulin without charge, saving my life.

The worst part about my story is that it isn’t unique, at least not in this country. Young adults with Type 1 diabetes suffer life-threatening diabetic ketoacidosis — a complication caused by insufficient insulin — at much higher rates in the United States than in Canada. Canada’s single-payer system provides seamless, lifelong coverage. But in the United States, diabetics must wage war with insurance companies to get the care we need, if we have insurance at all.

I’m glad that politicians are finally talking about health care reform. But those who only want to “protect” the Affordable Care Act or add a public option to our already byzantine mix of private and public plans are missing the point. Americans don’t “love” their private insurance, as many of them claim. They’re grateful for any coverage at all. Americans love their doctors, nurses and pharmacists, because those are the people who save our lives.

What diabetics — and all Americans — need is care that is lifelong and portable, covers all medically necessary services and drugs, and is accepted by all doctors and hospitals. Only a single-payer version of “Medicare for all,” in which care is publicly funded by one entity and privately delivered, would guarantee coverage to everyone in the United States, and eliminate the greed and administrative waste of private insurance.

It has been 10 years since my diabetes was diagnosed. I can’t help but think about the doctors and nurses who cared for me with such skill, my parents who sacrificed their needs for mine and the pharmacist who kindly slipped me that vial of insulin. I’m alive today because of them.

Will I have to live the next 10 years holding my breath through every doctor’s visit, praying that insurance will approve my medication, and in time? Will I ever be able to stop my endless fights with insurance middlemen? I know I’ll never live a day without worrying about my health. But maybe one day I, and millions of other diabetics in America, can live without worrying about how to pay for it.

Rachel Madley, a Ph.D. student at Columbia University Medical Center, is a student board member of the New York chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Children ~ when pharmacy management cut benefits: echo from West Virginia

"Big pharma" is an euphemism for "Big profits", at the expense of quality patient care.

Diabetes insulin

In other words, when pharmacy management programs cut particular drugs our of their formulary lists (meaning the medicine is not covered), the result is that patients must either pay the price gouging costs or suffer the health  consequences. In the situations where children with diabetes cannot obtain their pharmacy needs through their insurance plans, either via Medicaid or private coverage, the problem can lead to preventable chronic health diseases or even early death.  Although this "echo", editorial published in the West Virginia Gazette Mail newspaper and blogged by me, the opinion describes the situation in the Mountain State and the price gouging, in fact, is also going on in other states.

Children pay when insurers cut diabetes coverage

Children with diabetes face a lifetime of challenges. 

However, if insurers continue to exclude more and more diabetes-related medications and supplies from coverage, those children and their families could be saddled with a lifetime of exorbitant out-of-pocket costs as well.

West Virginia’s rate of diabetes has steadily increased. More than 15 percent of West Virginians have been diagnosed with the disease, the highest rate among all states.

The growing incidence of diabetes may be one reason pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) — the private companies health plans hire to oversee their prescription drug benefits — consistently exclude diabetes-related medications and supplies from coverage, more than any other treatment category. That’s according to a study by the Doctor-Patient Rights Project, which analyzed the increasing use of formulary exclusion lists, the catalogs PBMs issue to lay out the medicines they will no longer cover.

In the last four years, the number of diabetes-related medications or supplies excluded from coverage by the nation’s two largest PBMs (CVS and Express Scripts) has increased by almost 80 percent, the only treatment category where the PBMs consistently increased the number of excluded medicines every year. Diabetes-related treatments now account for one out of every five medicines excluded from coverage by these PBMs.

PBMs use formulary exclusion lists to compel patients to choose less-expensive treatment, falsely assuming that every diabetes patient will respond the same way to every treatment. They are a form of forced, nonmedical switching designed to save the insurer from having to pay for treatments chosen by the patient and physician.

The Doctor-Patient Rights Project found that many patients asked to switch to a new medication choose to pay out-of-pocket for the treatment their doctor originally prescribed, rather than switch to the insurer’s preferred drug. In effect, formulary exclusions simply transfer more of the cost of prescribed treatments to patients and their families.

Studies show that patients forced to shoulder more of the expense of their medications are more likely to try to make the prescriptions for their original medication last longer by splitting pills or skipping doses of insulin.

People with diabetes who do not experience immediate symptoms from not following proper treatment protocols may wrongly conclude that the medicine remains just as effective or that they need less of it. This is especially true of low-income and minority patients, who are already more likely to develop diabetes and to experience diabetes-related organ failure.

All parents want the best for their child, including the medicine the doctor believes will best care for their child’s diabetes. 

Insurers that refuse to cover certain prescribed diabetes treatments, thinking that parents will simply switch to the insurer’s cheaper alternative, may be gravely mistaken. Forced nonmedical switching may simply increase out-of-pocket expenses for parents, and, as a result, increase the lifetime treatment costs for their children with diabetes.

Forced nonmedical switching may even backfire as a cost-saving strategy for insurers. When patients fail to adhere to proper medication protocols, they make treatment less and less effective.

Reduced adherence, in fact, accounts for up to 10 percent of hospitalizations, 25 percent of nursing home admissions and as many as 125,000 premature deaths annually, according to a study in the Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy. 

As a result, it contributes an extra $100 billion to $289 billion in medical expenses each year, at least some of which fall to insurers to pay.

Insurers that target diabetes-related medications and supplies for exclusion are being short-sighted.

When they fully cover prescribed treatments, insurers permit parents to start their children on the most effective medications and to use them appropriately. As a result, they experience improved clinical outcomes and fewer lifetime medical costs. The money saved by letting doctors drive treatment decisions more than compensates for the higher pharmaceutical costs.

This opinion was authored by Jeff Hitchcock, the founder and president of Children with Diabetes, one of the most established and well-trafficked online diabetes communities, and a member of the Doctor-Patient Rights Project. 

Stewart Perry is the past national chairman of the board of the American Diabetes Association, and the parent of a child with diabetes.