Transplant Decision Too Late, Teen Dies
Insurer Initially Refused To Pay For Liver Transplant; Girl Dies After Procedure Approved
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Insurance Won't Pay; Girl Dies
An insurance company denied a teenage girl a liver transplant. When they changed their minds, it was too late. The girl had died and now many are outraged. John Blackstone reports.
-
Photo
Nataline Sarkisyan died Thursday night at about 6 p.m. at University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. Hours earlier, her health insurance company reversed its decision not to pay for a liver transplant that doctors said the girl needed, Friday, Dec. 21, 2007. (CBS)
-
Interactive
Cancer
Learn about the most common cancers, who gets them and how they are treated.
Nataline Sarkisyan died Thursday night at about 6 p.m. at University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. She had been in a vegetative state for weeks, said her mother, Hilda.
"She passed away, and the insurance (company) is responsible for this," she said.
The family is planning to sue the insurance company, their attorney said Friday.
Attorney Mark Geragos said he also plans to ask the district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against CIGNA HealthCare for the death of Nataline Sarkisyan.
The insurer "maliciously killed her" because it did not want to bear the expense of her transplant and aftercare, Geragos said at a news conference outside his downtown Los Angeles office. He did not say when or in what court he would file the suit.
Nataline had been battling leukemia and received a bone marrow transplant from her brother. She developed a complication, however, that caused her liver to fail.
Doctors at UCLA determined she needed a transplant and sent a letter to CIGNA Healthcare on Dec. 11. The Philadelphia-based health insurance company denied payment for the transplant.
CIGNA stated her plan did not cover "experimental, investigational and unproven services," her doctors said, reports CBS News station KCBS-TV.
On Thursday, about 150 teenagers and nurses protested outside CIGNA's office in Glendale. As the protesters rallied, the company reversed its decision and said it would approve the transplant.
"This is an incredible turnaround generated by a massive outpouring around the country that proves that an engaged public can make a difference and achieve results," said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association and National Nurses Organizing Committee, one of the rally's organizers, reports KCBS.
Despite the reversal, CIGNA said in an e-mail statement before she died that there was a lack of medical evidence showing the procedure would work in Nataline's case.
In their letter, the UCLA doctors said patients in situations similar to Nataline's who undergo transplants have a six-month survival rate of about 65 percent.
Officials with CIGNA could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday night.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.



- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 246 CommentsMy condolences go out to the family who have lost a beautiful young lady to this.
surgeons who studied for decades on how to save lives
are stymied by rubberstamping desk jockeys who drove to work in Chevy citations...
Jeezus, what is wrong with this picture???
Many of the people in those companies have never had 1 day of medical training, nor have the ever stepped foot inside of a college.
I know for a fact Cigna hires them, as a friend of my daughter has been working for them for years, even goes to court for them and was hired right out of High School.
We pay a massive price for people like this to decide if we should live or die.
My deepest condolences to the family.
We can disagree on rather or not universal health care is the best solution, but your kidding yourself if you don''t think the health insurance business in this country is in serious need of reform!
CIGNA sucks
;)
The lawsuit coming is anything but.
jackie0428 - stop rationalizing. People buy insurance to pay for the coverage so their lives can be saved and extended. What happened is negligence and greed at best; 2nd degree murder at worst. With your logic, we may as well disband insurance altogether and everybody can save their money. Middle men suck anyway.
Sometimes, these insurers are not as cold and heartless as they are portrayed. Why would you want to transplant a liver into someone who is in a "vegetative" state???
I worked with someone (a rabid Republican and Veteran) who was diagnosed with very aggressive breast cancer. In the middle of treatment her health insurance refuse to cover any more of her treatment - the doc indicated that she can appeal but she did not have the time as any cessation in treatment will result in her death before the appeals process is finalized. She spent every last $$ in her 401K and savings then sold her house, everything she had in order to qualify for Medicare (for some reason the VA did not want to help) her life was saved - thankfully.
And it pisses her off to no end that a "Democratic big government welfare program" saved her life :)
She still has Bush stickers on her car but will the first to tell you that health insurance in country does not work.
Yeah, come on people! In fact, drop all your insurance, car, home, health, etc., stop listening to doctors or professionals of any kind. In the end your entire life is completely ruled by random chance, and there''s nothing anyone can do about it.
jackie0428, why didn''t you just tell us all to off ourselves right now and save ourselves the trouble of worrying about when it''ll happen?
I''ll take a stab at this: Because the state was caused by massive liver malfunction and she could have come out of it provided she had a new liver. Risky operations are just that - risky. The question is whether or not the $$ we all pay the health insurers should go to this sort of treatment. The insurers naturally err on the side of caution. And sometimes people die because of it.
In a world without insurance companies, the girl also would have died if she were unable to afford the doctor''s fees. Yet I don''t see anyone blaming doctors. And what if the transplant failed--does the insurance company get its money back?
When you obtain insurance, the company isn''t required to pay for everything. What if you thought aroma therapy would heal you, despite no evidence that it works? Or what if you had a disease without a cure and you wanted to try some expensive, untested treatment? What if you were a 95 year-old greatgrandmother with other medical problems? Or what if your liver transplant was necessary because you damaged your own liver by drinking too much? Obviously, there are a lot of issues that can be involved.
The death of anyone so young is tragic, but the "grab-the-pitchforks-and-torches" responses are ignorant. Are any of you doctors? Do you know for sure if the insurance company violated any laws by denying coverage? Do any of us know all the facts in this case yet?
More importantly, how many of YOU would agree to increase your insurance premiums in order to cover unproven treatment for perfect strangers? I''m sure you would be glad that your insurance company denied coverage in such a situation.
Let''s not be so quick to pass judgment just because the media runs a sensationalistic headline.
Posted by brianp55
Ya ever think maybe she was in a vegatative state because of liver failure??? Hello.. is anyone home???
The answer is not to make insurance illegal. The answer is to offer a universal health care system that forces all insurance companies to compete with it, thereby driving insurance costs down. Couple that with real regulation of the medical and pharmaceutical industries, and we might see some progress toward real health care in this country.
If politicians were more concerned with the average American citizen than they are with the richest among us, all the money that currently goes to corporate bailouts and tax cuts for the rich (literally at the expense of the middle class) would pay for things like medical research, education, health care for all citizens, and infrastructure improvements that would help all of us, not just the rich. Government by the rich, for the rich is plutocracy. Government by the corporations for the corporations is fascism. Either one can be used to define out current system of government, and both are a far cry from real democracy.
Posted by brianp55
I agree, a new liver may have, in the end, been a waste of resources. however, there was a time when health insurance companies would have been givin the benifit of the doubt on something like this. Those days are gone, Americans trust health insurance companies to do nothing more than provide as $little$ as possible for as much as $possible$ while fearing nothing but bad PR news stories.
Take any lawyer joke and replace "Lawyer" with "Health Insurer" and you''ll get the same reaction.
However, given the facts of THIS SPECIFIC situation, if you read them all jackie0428, as the courts are going to, it is EXTREMELY intimate and an immense issue accross the country.
In conclusion, the family will be victorious either by settlement or trial. But I''ll bet anyone here lunch that this case doesn''t even make it to a courtroom and if it does by some penumbra of a chance, no company in their right mind would NEVER want to even see the light of day after leaving the courtroom with a JURY verdict against them.
BOTTOM LINE, jackie0428 is sadly mistaken(but to no fault of her own, he/she simply just doesn''t know).
But then again, this may end up being Contracts Law Issue such as the Ford/Firestone incident. Hopefully their attorney''s guide themselves accordingly and FIRST determine whether to sue within a Court of Law, or, a Court of Equity.
and then even again..... maybe i''m wrong.... (but i doubt it) lol...
Happy Festivas Everyone!!!
;)
The courts enforce and uphold state laws. These laws become laws by a judges rule, or laws created by legislation, or the people. Any way you slice it, Judges, Bills, Petitions, Laws, and Legislation exist because of you and I... THE PEOPLE.
However, 1% percent of those people (such as yourself PAKAAL) fall into the catagory of BLASTING OUT AN UNEDUCATED OPINION on such a sensitive matter like this (no offense intended, and you are entitled to your opinion,... I''m just letting you know that your opinion is false and I wouldn''t tell anyone your thoughts on this one). -that''t free advice-
The only reason why government does not work is that we have people with the philosophy "government does not work" currently in office doing their best to prove that philosophy correct.
Universal health care works better than our system. The vast majority of industrialized countries that have universal health care offer far better care than our insurance company run system offers. With rare exceptions, the only people who get adequate care in our country are those who can afford it out-of-pocket (the rich).
I am guessing that you have never used the current medical system for a major medical procedure. Doctors are now requiring the costs of surgeries to be paid for up front--before the procedure can take place. This is not a matter of bad parenting; it is a matter of parents who could not afford to pay the up front costs, greedy doctors who refused the procedure until they got their money, and a greedy insurance company that refused to pay for a procedure that would have worked had it been done in a timely fashion.
Don''t blame the parents. Blame the system that killed their daughter.
However, given the facts of THIS SPECIFIC situation, if you read them all PAKAAL , as the courts are going to, it is EXTREMELY intimate and an immense issue accross the country.
In conclusion, the family will be victorious either by settlement or trial. But I''''ll bet anyone here lunch that this case doesn''''t even make it to a courtroom and if it does by some penumbra of a chance, no company in their right mind would NEVER want to even see the light of day after leaving the courtroom with a JURY verdict against them.
BOTTOM LINE, PAKAAL is sadly mistaken(but to no fault of her own, he/she simply just doesn''''t know).
But then again, this may end up being Contracts Law Issue such as the Ford/Firestone incident. Hopefully their attorney''''s guide themselves accordingly and FIRST determine whether to sue within a Court of Law, or, a Court of Equity.
and then even again..... maybe i''''m wrong.... (but i doubt it) lol...
and furthermore...........
LASTLY, anyone who makes this a Republican/Democrat or "Corporate America" debate... well, we will concede and say you win, now please leave the room so real minds may interact. thank you.
***IF IT WASN''T FOR CORPORATE AMERICA, YOU WOULD BE POSTING YOUR MINDLESS THOUGHTS ACROSS THE GLOBE WITH JUST A FEW CARELESS MISTAKES ON THAT FANCY SONY LAPTOP OF YOURS NOW WOULD YOU*** so go sit in the corner with your "corporate america" argument for 30 minutes and face the wall. your being punished for being ignorant.
Happy Festivas Everyone!!!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 246 Comments