...Because what else is new, right?
But seriously, what I want to vent about is insurance deciding what is or isn't medically necessary. Let's break this down:
You go to your physician, who attended upwards of 8 years of schooling to become a MD. They evaluate you, hopefully take your input as a patient, form a medical opinion and a plan of care, write a prescription or two and send you on your way. You go to your pharmacy to pickup your medication, only to find that your insurance company has denied coverage of this prescription. They feel it is not medically necessary, or they have a "preferred alternative" that they do cover.
This is something we've unfortunately all grown used to. But let's just pause a moment. And let that sink in.
First of all, preferred by who? Not by me, the person who's going to be ingesting/injecting/applying the medication. Not by my doctor, who prescribed medication in the first place. But I mean, what value are our measly preferences in this situation, right?
Second of all, our insurance company is determining what our medical needs are. So what, then, is the point of seeing a physician in the first place? Why not just go directly to the insurance company and seek their medical opinion? Oh, that's right. Because they're not physicians.
To play devil's advocate, doctors are employed by insurance companies to conduct clinical reviews of prescriptions. However, are these doctors the most appropriate people to be doing this review? In short, no. When my Fiasp was up for review to determine what level of coverage it would receive, the review was conducted by a PhD. No shade to PhD's, but if someone's reviewing my insulin needs, I think it should be, maybe, I don't know, an endocrinologist? Perhaps my endocrinologist? One who isn't employed by a company that profits from denying coverage of the medication I'm seeking? I mean, we are literally asking people to make a determination that will either harm their own company, or harm us. And they've never met us. Which way are they more likely to go? Does conflict of interest not play a role here?
It's a very backwards system, to say the least. We go to doctors to get appropriate care. But then we're met with roadblocks to actually receive that care. For people with chronic illness, dealing with this for a lifetime is draining and aggravating. We should explore a system that makes it easier for people to live their best, most healthy lifestyle. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we keep people healthy, we avoid future hospitalizations and prolonged illnesses. And in turn, avoid future expenses our insurance will have to cover. So what is the end game for them? Are they just stuck in that phase of childhood development in which they have no ability to engage in delayed gratification?
End rant.
(For now).
The other night I was snuggled up at home, catching up on the latest episode of The Good Doctor. I was drawn in to a particular sub-plot of the episode. One of the main characters, who is receiving chemo, finds himself being pestered by his neighbor in the treatment room to join their cancer support group. Long story short, the character resists for the whole episode, arguing that he doesn't want cancer to define his life, it's not who he is, he doesn't need a support group, all that jazz. In the end, he comes around, and joins his chemo neighbors for a game of cards.
Throughout the course of this, I couldn't help but think about how many times I've heard this dialogue before - whether it's about diabetes or any other chronic illness. People don't want to be defined by their condition (understandably so). Because of this, it's common for people to push away when approached with support groups or communities for people who share their diagnoses. We want to be more than our diagnoses, so we don't want to over-identify with it.
But here's the thing - there's a difference between identity and community. Belonging to a community of type 1 diabetics doesn't mean that you yourself are only diabetes and nothing else. Your identity is still yours. Sure, diabetes and the community are a part of your identity, but they are not the whole thing.
We can't always change what we're living with. We can't make diabetes go away. So why not find solace in the fact that there are others out there who share our struggle? You may find that they don't like to over-identify with their disease either. You may not even talk about diabetes when you're together. But having that support system there undoubtedly inserts a positive aspect into living with a disease that you cannot change.
Healthcare has been a hot button issue lately here in the states. Of course for those of us who live with a chronic illness, it has always been an issue. But with the 2016 election, healthcare along with many other public policies have come to the forefront of the nationwide conversation. And frankly, the conversations have been quite alarming.
There is an overwhelming population of people who believe that healthcare has to be earned. That the right to live is not an inherent right for all humans (even though our US Constitution specifically states otherwise). People feel that if you work hard, pay your dues, and play by the rules, you will A: Stay healthy, and B: Be granted great insurance coverage, God forbid anything should happen to you. This logic is flawed. Chronic and/or acute health issues can happen to anyone, at anytime, for a variety of reasons. As a species, humans don't like to believe this. It creates what's called "cognitive dissonance," which is when we are presented with a reality that doesn't match up with what we've always believed. It therefore causes dissonance, or disruption, so we do everything in our power to ignore the reality and continue on with our faulty beliefs. We cannot reconcile reality with our wishes because it causes discomfort.
Most people grow up hoping or believing that they will have good health. This is normal - it's a positive outlook on life. However, as we grow older we tend to experience certain realities - maybe we're diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, someone we love is in an accident, our parent gets laid off and we almost lose our insurance - and we are able to shift our beliefs accordingly to read more like this: things may not always be easy. Things could happen to us and our family. But for some people, this adjustment doesn't happen. They continue to believe that bad things come to those who deserve it and that healthcare should be earned.
So is the issue that people are inherently bad and have complete disregard for others? I hope not. No, what I think is happening in the majority of cases is that people are simply rigid in their beliefs due to concerns about their own self-preservation. And this needs to change. We need to challenge our beliefs because they are flawed. Yes, it is a frightening reality to accept - that we could be struck with an illness or hit by a car at any time. But we are doing more harm than good by holding on to the flawed belief that we are in total and complete control of our health or our circumstances. It is not reality.
The reality is, every human has an inherent right to live. And for some humans, what they need to live - and live well - is a bit more extensive than what others need. So I challenge you all - what belief do you cling to that begrudges others their inherent rights? How can you start to chip away at that belief and re-frame it?
