I agree that the docs should not have offered the procedure and CIGNA should not have agreed to cover it at first. However, this reads ripe for a good lawyer to make a few bucks off both CIGNA and Vanderbilt for “psychological harm” to the patient. Perhaps CIGNA should be fined the amount of the cost of the procedure (the $ being used to…
I agree that the docs should not have offered the procedure and CIGNA should not have agreed to cover it at first. However, this reads ripe for a good lawyer to make a few bucks off both CIGNA and Vanderbilt for “psychological harm” to the patient. Perhaps CIGNA should be fined the amount of the cost of the procedure (the $ being used to fund Cancer research, but not at Vanderbilt) and Vanderbilt fined the cost of the procedure (the $ used to pay for the patient to have the procedure done somewhere else).
I agree that the docs should not have offered the procedure and CIGNA should not have agreed to cover it at first. However, this reads ripe for a good lawyer to make a few bucks off both CIGNA and Vanderbilt for “psychological harm” to the patient. Perhaps CIGNA should be fined the amount of the cost of the procedure (the $ being used to fund Cancer research, but not at Vanderbilt) and Vanderbilt fined the cost of the procedure (the $ used to pay for the patient to have the procedure done somewhere else).