People in Therapy Facing Sudden Insurer Rejections

Health insurance is something that can cause significant financial burdens for some policy holders, but most are able to justify the costs of monthly pay-outs by feeling secure in the knowledge that if they need medical help, they’ll be able to acquire and afford it. Such security has been diminishing lately, however, as many insurers attempt to cut their own costs by denying coverage to those with preexisting medical conditions or whose cost of care is deemed to become too great. The Los Angeles Times has recently picked up a story along these lines, portraying a young man suffering from mental health difficulties who has recently been cut off from his insurance plan, which reports that his cost of coverage for an array of psychiatric medicines and psychotherapy treatments has become too great.

As scores of Americans face this seemingly impossible issue, the rates of those with mental health concerns relying on therapy and medications to address their issues suddenly finding themselves without the means to pay for treatment is likely to rise. In some cases, sudden lack of access to care can lead to further complications such as an inability to keep one’s job or significant problems in romantic and family relationships, effects which can exacerbate existing symptoms.

While the nation attempts to reorganize its approach to health insurance, many people may be wondering how therapy and other mental health treatments will be affected. For those who have found a manageable answer to their mental health concerns only to cease care upon being dropped by their insurance plan, hopes are likely to rest on greater–and more reliable–coverage.

© Copyright 2009 by By John Smith, therapist in Bellingham, Washington. All Rights Reserved. Permission to publish granted to GoodTherapy.org.

The preceding article was solely written by the author named above. Any views and opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by GoodTherapy.org. Questions or concerns about the preceding article can be directed to the author or posted as a comment below.

  • 8 comments
  • Leave a Comment
  • Parkson

    Parkson

    December 26th, 2009 at 9:36 AM

    This is just ridiculous! If the companies are rejecting to continue the insurance of an individual whose claims are high, then will they return the money of an individual whose claims are zero?

    They have to balance it whether the claim is zero or high… that is the basic menaing of an insurance policy, isn’t it?

  • victoria

    victoria

    December 26th, 2009 at 9:42 AM

    I see this as an effect of the still-impending financial meltdown… companies have been able to sustain these kind of hefty bills coming their way all the time, but with the ongoing meltdown things are surely a little different. Maybe they could raise the premium that has to be paid for the individuals with a history…?

  • russel mcmahon

    russel mcmahon

    December 27th, 2009 at 2:10 AM

    There are limitations when you take an insurance depending upon your age… because you are more prone to health problems if you are old…this is similar too…there is no reason to be agitated about this move.

  • Ella

    Ella

    December 27th, 2009 at 6:20 AM

    Reading the most fascinating book right now about how countries like Britain, France, and Germany finance their own health care systems, none of which would ever deny a claim for someone who was sick and needed treatment or deny them coverage. And this makes me think how in the world can the US get to a point where we can offer the same thing? Sadly I am not sure this will ever happen- their insurance plans are strictly not for profit, where ours have to pay dividends to shareholders. In my opinion healthcare should not be about investing and making money, only saving lives, and therein is the big crux of the problem.

  • alice B.I

    alice B.I

    December 28th, 2009 at 2:10 AM

    This needs a thorough surveying and assesment from a central agency and only then can this be disputed and a decision taken by a cort or some intervening body. While both the people and the insurance companies are correct in their own way, it will take a third party to do some surveying and come to a conclusion regarding this.

  • Eileen

    Eileen

    December 28th, 2009 at 12:02 PM

    Just when people need help the most these insurers are determined to kick them down even more.

  • D.Alex

    D.Alex

    December 29th, 2009 at 2:15 AM

    Maybe the insurance companies could have a higher premium for such people instaed of not letting them have cover altogether…?

  • Toni Lynn

    Toni Lynn

    December 29th, 2009 at 7:25 AM

    When you play with insurance you are taking a gamble and for so many people right now that gamble is not going to pay off. That is how the whole system is designed. Doesn’t make it right but unless we are willing to learn the rules of the game and how they are playing their end we have no chance in you know where of ever being able to make a difference.

Leave a Comment

By commenting you acknowledge acceptance of GoodTherapy.org's Terms and Conditions of Use.

* Indicates required field.

 

Advanced Search

Search Our Blog

   
GoodTherapy.org is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice, diagnosis, medical treatment, or therapy. Always seek the advice of your physician or qualified mental health provider with any questions you may have regarding any mental health symptom or medical condition. Never disregard professional psychological or medical advice nor delay in seeking professional advice or treatment because of something you have read on GoodTherapy.org.