In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote:

> Dan Abel > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > Michel Boucher > wrote:
> >
> >> If people are paying rates with the expectaTion they will be covered
> >> should these cases arises, then refusing to authorize treatment when
> >> they do arise is criminal. It's called fraud.
> >
> > If I don't like the shape of my nose, then Kaiser will fix it. After
> > I sign the paper saying that I will pay 100% of the cost. If I want
> > Viagra, then Kaiser will give it to me. Either my plan agrees to a
> > fee hike, or I pay the full price when I pick it up at the pharmacy.
> > When I signed up for Kaiser, Viagra didn't exist. That doesn't sound
> > like fraud to me. If I expect Kaiser to provide recreational drugs at
> > little or no cost, I will be disappointed.
>
> However, if you had read the article, it states:
>
> "The state Department of Corporations is investigating whether the Kaiser
> Permanente health maintenance organization is violating state law by
> refusing to cover the cost of providing the impotence drug Viagra,
> officials said Thursday.
>
> "A corporations department spokeswoman, Julie Stewart, said the agency 'has
> been reviewing Kaiser's position regarding Viagra for over a month. A
> formal investigation was instituted as soon as we learned that Kaiser's
> decision to deny coverage was based on economic considerations.'"
>
> This has nothing to do with your weewee and all to do with their refusal to
> abide by regulations in areas in which they "operate". Obviously, they
> believe themselves to be above the law, which is the first sign of a
> general malaise in the insurance scam biz.


Actually, I did read the article. I found it very confusing, since you
stated in your original post, dated sep 27, 2009, that Kaiser "announced
last month", in an article in the LA Times dated Jul 3, 1998 (not a typo
- 1998). The LA Times references another article, dated Jan 1, 1999:

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jan...iness/fi-59448

The entire article reads:

"Kaiser Loses Bid to Drop Viagra Coverage
January 01, 1999

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, the largest nonprofit health maintenance
organization, said California's Department of Corporations has denied
its request to drop coverage in 1999 of anti-impotence drug Viagra and
other sexual-dysfunction treatments. Kaiser spokesman Jim Anderson said
the Oakland-based HMO's current policy of requiring patients to pay 50%
of the treatment costs will stand. He said the decision would probably
result in some rate increases "down the line" as the costs of such drugs
rise. The department, meanwhile, is considering similar requests from
several other large HMOs, including PacifiCare Health Systems and Aetna
U.S. Healthcare. Last year, the agency investigated Kaiser after the HMO
sought to exclude Viagra coverage. This week, Kaiser and the state
reached a settlement; no liability was found."

I wonder what has happened in the last 10 years? A search of Kaiser's
web site:

kp.org

says nothing of interest.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA