CIGNA kills Nataline Sarkisyan

Some of these insurance company executives need to consider killing themselves. How do you deny a patient a transplant, then approve it in the 11th hour when the patient is about to die!?!

Even worse in this video the ABC reporter says it’s not CIGNA’s fault but rather our “system.” Uhhhh…. no, it is CIGNA ‘s fault. They wouldn’t give her the transplant.

These companies are making a killing, killing people. Shame.

Rawstory has the video
and we are tracking Nataline Sarkisyan’s story on Mahalo.

Highly recommend you blog about this and send a message to CIGNA and other insurance companies. I’m so furious about this… I don’t know exactly what to do besides blog about it and encourage you to do the same. Maybe if CIGNA’s management team got emails about this they will take a long look in the mirror and realize they killed this girl.

15 Billion dollar market cap… almost 20B in revenue… you can’t afford a transplant?! More.

Update: If everyone did a blog post saying “F- You Cigna!” or “Screw you CIGNA!” would that get to the front page of the WSJ/NYT? Would it impact CIGNA’s stock price? I wonder what would happen if 1,000 or 10,000 bloggers did a post what impact that would have on how CIGNA treats people.

CIGNA Executive Management Team — how do you sleep at night?!


2 thoughts on “CIGNA kills Nataline Sarkisyan

  1. It was very unfortunate that Natalie lost her battle to cancer.
    It is tragic when anyone goes through something like this. I know,
    I have lost my grandmother to cancer and supported my father
    through his battle with cancer as well. I don’t believe that
    most people understand why this was not initially approved for
    Natalie. With ANY insurance company all treatment MUST be
    medically necessary and must also meet certain criteria to
    establish medical necessity. It is unfortunate. According to
    some reports, it was said that the procedure would have given
    Natalie another 6 months of life. Another point…most
    insurance plans are self-funded, meaning the employer (with
    the employee’s premiums) pay for their claims. It is NOT the
    insurance company’s money and most people do not understand
    that. Knowing this now, is it reasonable to ask the employer
    to fund this procedure for a patient that will only get
    another 6 months of life? Obviously, a transplant is quite
    expensive. If everyone who has comments such as this really
    understood the BIG picture, they wouldn’t pin this on the
    insurance company….the insurance company ONLY administers
    the benefit for the EMPLOYER. The employer is quite aware of
    the insurance companies policies/procedures. Why aren’t
    these folks asking why the EMPLOYER will not fund it. It is
    ultimatley the employer’s money, not CIGNA’s.

  2. Why don’t you tell the rest of the “self-funded insurance” story, Dawnybear? Plans may be “self-funded”, but employers typically purchase stop-loss insurance to cover any claims over a certain amount. These self-funded plans also work typically just like a fully-funded plan, meaning that it is not the employee or the employer who call the shots as far as covered care, it is the insurance company who administrates the plan. So, for all intents and purposes, these “self-funded” plans still leave the insured at the mercy of a beancounter in a cubicle. The pooled insureds certainly have absolutely no control over the money, either. So, if the insureds don’t have control over the money, then who does? The insurance company. And if what you say about the employer not funding hthe money were true, then the medical care of the employee is totally in the hands of the employer, which is ludicrous at best. Try thinking that one through next time when you decide to “educate” everyone on the difference between a self-funded and fully-funded insurance plan is.

Leave a Reply