I was very surprised to receive a response to my post from a member of my executive board, as I did not expect any response. So here is my response to the executive members thoughts on my post.
I read with your statement that “I have no interest in defending Green Shield (GSC)” then found it interesting that you do just that by your following statement. “I think you will find it a common (not universal) plan practice to not fund a full 90-day initial prescription.”
I believe it is common for those companies that discriminate or practice ageism or paternalism to have what they believe to be “good” reasons for their actions. The reason that you put forward is one of these “good” reasons. On the face of it, the argument appears to be based on some sound logic, but without statistics that show this is a major cost issue, it is hard to accept the argument that you put forth on behalf of Green Shield Canada.
The insurance company is in my mind claiming they know what is best for the patient and the doctor, which is either based on ageism or paternalism. Either one should be unacceptable. You state that sometimes a person begins a drug program but experiences side effects and stops taking the drug. I wonder what percentage of people stop taking the drug because of bad experiences and what this action actually costs the drug company.
Before I accept your argument that this policy has nothing to do with the age of the client, I would have to see some independent review of the number and ages of the clients that Green Shield have had that stopped taking medication and began a new treatment based on side effects of a drug. I suspect the policy has more to do with an underlying culture of paternalism, which leads to discrimination such as ageism. So, I have to respectfully disagree with your argument on this point.
Your next argument, about reducing costs and maximizing profits is a legitimate aim of any business, but when they do this at the expense of the client it should be questioned. You state in one sentence that “GSC appears to have decided that there is a saving to the plan when they limit the initial prescription and pay the additional Dispensing Fee one week later when a person renews.” And then state that GSC does not want to pay the repeated dispensing fee for 30-day prescriptions on a 90-day treatment. This is interesting but does not deal with the point that both these policies appear to be ageist or paternalistic, in that these policies come from a culture of “Father knows best” so they are paternalistic at best or discriminatory (ageist) if only older clients receive the benefits of these policies.
You state that “It's all about reducing their costs and they will say it's about keeping premiums as low as possible”, this is the result of the policy but what the policy reinforces and I believe grows from, is the discriminatory or paternalistic culture that appears to be driving decision making at GSC.
I am glad to hear that the “Office staff has spent a lot of time helping our members deal with GSC and we have repeatedly let the Pension Trustees know of our members' frustrations with GSC.” I will let others that I talk to that they should continue to let the the executive know what problems they are having so you can continue to press the Pension Board for action.
No, I was not aware that we “have a combined EHC plan with a travel plan that has been growing”. Where can I find information on the plan so I can pass on the information to others?
Yes, I will agree with you that all plans can be improved, but I am glad that we have a say in policy language and coverage, and I will take a look at our plan, although I and my wife do not travel as much as we used to travel. I am encouraged that there may be a plan for members like myself who do not travel.
Finally, thank you for your response, although I disagree with some of your positions, I find it encouraging that there is some action on extended health options for our members.
No comments:
Post a Comment