You may be denied life insurance for carrying naloxone (2018)
wbur.org
wbur.org
and since abstinence only education is ineffective
and the culture could be updated to carrying naloxone to prevent said deaths, if people were actually willing to have a conversation that wasn't based on abstinence only
then.... this is a dumb and counterproductive policy? how much of the insurance pool is really affected? ... the narcan is to save your friends if you're there, this is like saying "there's a defibrillator nearby so since you might die, insurance denied" with a difference being that there was a purchase record. if an insurance pool is part of the calculation, would that difference matter? seems like you would need actual evidence instead of guesswork.
[0] replace "ponzi" with "scheme", "mechanism", or any word you coincidentally apply to financial concepts you happen to respect
> She contacted her insurance agent and was told her application was denied because something on her medication list indicated that Isela uses drugs. Isela, who works in an addiction treatment program at Boston Medical Center (BMC), scanned her med list. It showed a prescription for the opioid-reversal drug naloxone, brand name Narcan.
> Isela had bought naloxone over the counter at a pharmacy, as can anyone in Massachusetts.
If Isela bought the narcan OTC and her PCP didn't know about it (aka it wasn't in the medical records), how did the insurance company find out about it?
(Edit - may not have been her fault, strictly. Sounds like the system needs a “taking” vs “for others” flag, but that also sounds ripe for abuse… I’m sympathetic to insurance companies erring on the side of “you have it, you might be taking it”)
The insurance companies then confirmed that their flagging / rejecting of applications like hers is intentional.
There are a few ways this could end up in the hands of a life insurance company, no erroneous form-filing needed.
So my question is, how could an insurance company know what prescriptions you picked up at Costco last week based only on data from your bank?
I'm pretty sure your pharmacy cannot even share that data with your bank without violating HIPAA.
I really appreciate the cynicism here, since most people have no idea how much detailed customer information retailers and banks are gathering and selling, but I think in this particular case it is misplaced.
In any case, I consider pretty much any credit card transaction I do with a major company as 100% public information down to the SKU and qty purchased.
More likely here though is that this is a controlled substance treated like Pseudoephedrine is. There your ID must be scanned, and it is enrolled in a national database. This is a federal statute and I would be stunned if insurance didn't mine this information.
This is a big industry. California's "Do Not Sell My Personal Information" law even has specific carve outs for retail consumer surveillance firms.
[0] https://www.fastcompany.com/90490923/credit-card-companies-a...
All pharmacy transactions, including many, many "OTC" sales, are heavily surveilled. I can't buy freakin' dramamine withouth showing ID, even though it's "OTC" here. It wouldn't be very surprising for an insurer to have access to that stuff.
Here in WA, I've never shown my ID at a drugstore even for prescriptions much less OTC>
Now you've been "prescribed" Narcan, for all intents and purposes. The pharmacy now fills it via the normal procedures, including submitting to insurance as required to obtain payment for it behind the scenes.
So... your insurance knows now you have (at least) once "taken" Narcan.
Same thing happens when you go to a pharmacy for a flu or COVID shot or other vaccines: a remote physician "writes" the prescription for the vaccine, to which the pharmacist then draws and administers.
1. Take the naltrexone
2. Wait an hour
3. You know have about a 4-6 hour window you can drink.
4. Redose with a half dose if you need to drink more.Threw away my Rx without taking a pill...and now I can't get life insurance.
2 - Did she quote any other carriers? Mass Mutual comes to mind... if not, sounds like the broker dropped the ball to me. Individual policies are tougher to underwrite.
They assume that Naloxone prescription correlates with drug use which correlates with high death rates, therefor deny coverage. Yet this is literally a statewide prescription for EVERYONE AND ANYONE, but they ignore that fact, aaand collateral damage ensues.
Same as software and insurance companies assuming that high braking and cornering forces are automatically signs of bad driving when they are literally the hallmark of highly trained/skilled drivers (the difference is that the highly skilled drivers know where is the limit of adhesion and rarely exceed it while the ignorant teenager will often sail right past the limit of adhesion and slide into a tree or something).
Same as Google or Amazon deciding to ban all of a user's accounts for some reason that triggers some algorithm that maybe sometimes correctly identifies fraud or system abuse, but creates huge collateral damage when wrong.
It is pretty obvious that managers deploying technology either don't know or don't care about such consequences - they are externalizing their failures on the general population.
I don't know how to fix this sort of thing short of legally requiring companies to provide reasonable recourse and imposing costs if they don't (e.g., the damaged party can demand prompt & effective recourse and if they don't get it can easily sure and collect damages.)
What hurts opiate addicts is the lifestyle, not the drug. But if they have a job and a stable economy, there is no health effect. What kills opiate addicts is two things.
1) The user quits, then maybe after a year of being clean, to celebrate perhaps, they take their regular dose again, and their tolerance has dropped to nothing, and they accidentally overdose. I believe this is how Sublime's Bradley Nowell died, and possibly Tom Petty.
2) Evil, sociopathic dealers that spike their heroin with fentanyl, likely aware they will kill someone, because they think it is good advertising, letting everyone know their stuff is strong. I believe this is how we lost Philip Seymour Hoffman, and many many others.
So even beyond the obvious detail, that Naloxone saves lives, I don't understand what life insurance companies have against opiate addicts, and more so than smokers and drinkers? That makes no sense.