If you’ve been undergoing cancer treatment for 7 years and you still have cancer then funding will be taken away because it’s seen as not effective even if it’s stopping progression.
Then you get a long legal battle around it while your treatment is on hold.
That’s a pretty vague example, but it seems like if the cancer treatment has been going on for 7 years and you still have cancer then they’re correct in saying it’s not effective.
I have a slow-growing inoperable brain tumor. If they cut it out I’d die. I’ve done chemo and radiation, but that was to slow the growth. I need an MRI every 6 months because, if it begins to progress again, I have to go through the same treatment all over again. With this plan, I can live to a relatively normal-ish life expectancy.
What I had done is effective, and the best possible outcome. So should I be denied ongoing care and left to die? You’re ignorant about healthcare situations and talking out of your ass.
if the cancer treatment has been going on for 7 years and you still have cancer then they’re correct in saying it’s not effective.
Many cancers are chronic conditions which have to be managed. Like other conditions, still “having it” does not mean the treatment was ineffective. No medical practice is going to try to treat cancer knowing that a treatment would be ineffective. They seek to do it for a very good reason and to suggest otherwise means the government or insurer is choosing their own money over a person’s life.
Same thing happens in Canada but it’s the government denying the coverage.
Can you give me an example of a medically necessary coverage that is denied by the government?
If you’ve been undergoing cancer treatment for 7 years and you still have cancer then funding will be taken away because it’s seen as not effective even if it’s stopping progression.
Then you get a long legal battle around it while your treatment is on hold.
So the example would be the above image.
That’s a pretty vague example, but it seems like if the cancer treatment has been going on for 7 years and you still have cancer then they’re correct in saying it’s not effective.
I have a slow-growing inoperable brain tumor. If they cut it out I’d die. I’ve done chemo and radiation, but that was to slow the growth. I need an MRI every 6 months because, if it begins to progress again, I have to go through the same treatment all over again. With this plan, I can live to a relatively normal-ish life expectancy.
What I had done is effective, and the best possible outcome. So should I be denied ongoing care and left to die? You’re ignorant about healthcare situations and talking out of your ass.
You should be given the treatment that the majority of the medical community deems is necessary for your condition.
Yes, but that’s not what you said:
Many cancers are chronic conditions which have to be managed. Like other conditions, still “having it” does not mean the treatment was ineffective. No medical practice is going to try to treat cancer knowing that a treatment would be ineffective. They seek to do it for a very good reason and to suggest otherwise means the government or insurer is choosing their own money over a person’s life.
I wasn’t saying the insurance company was wrong. I was just saying it happens in countries with public healthcare.
Unless you can provide a real example this is just conjecture.
I don’t really know how I can provide a “person I know with cancer” example.
Even my own non-cancer treatments that get denied I don’t have a way to just show you it.
What, that people are denied ineffective health care? I should hope so.