Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

STARWARSQ70L t1_jbzpudc wrote

  1. You gloss over the pre authorizations as thou the rejections to those are a free bag of chips. Aetna does not factor cost to patient when that happens. Medications that are also included and up for rejection are also not factored. All of these represent added cost that wasn't there previously to a group no longer working and on fixed budgets. Furthermore all of those cost fall on a group that you contractually made assurance to previous which in part was why the judge threw this out the last time.

If everything was going to be better and cheaper for the people then the city would not of needed to charge people either to keep there existing plan. But before debating me how about calling your own doctor as we have and asking them. After all it's there care and prescriptions they write that has to get covered. Then come back and respond. Don't even mean that in a negative way but perhaps your doctor telling you the answer would convince you faster then I ever can.

2

STARWARSQ70L t1_jbzqych wrote

It's not about talking points. It's about the facts on the ground. When you have to go to your doctor and your doctor is telling you what won't be covered that's the bottom line. When you get to the pharmacy and something covered a previous day and suddenly not today all because of this that's the bottom line. Not some talking point they put on paper for lazy reading. Go actually see.

It's one thing if they did this for people who were actively working. While I think that would still be wrong contractually, at least your working still and could save for the changes and/or make changes with more runway in front of you before landing. But to do that after someone already put in the 20-30 years and now on a fix budget. And decisions were made based on said contractual agreement. I mean come on.

3