Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Advocate for Others Fights to Die at Home
Insurer says coverage 'used up'
BOSTON - Hospitalized against her will for depression 43 years ago, Judi Chamberlin of Arlington has devoted the decades since to championing patients' rights. She authored a seminal book touting patient control in mental health treatment, helped mobilize a movement, and won a following.
Now the 64-year-old activist is dying of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, an incurable lung disorder. Chamberlin's final wishes are to die the way she has lived, on her own terms. Late last year she halted hospitalizations and instead opted for home hospice care, which manages pain and emotional needs, but offers no curative treatments.
She had no idea she would end up fighting for herself the same battle she has long fought on behalf of others.
Her insurance company recently informed her that she has "used up" her hospice coverage. That benefit is limited to $5,000 in her insurance policy. She can, they said, file an appeal for an extension.
Hooked up to a portable oxygen tank, and often gasping for air, Chamberlin says this battle doesn't make sense; hospice care is not only her preference, it will cost her insurance company less.
"It just seems so counterintuitive when you think about what [the insurance company] paid for me in 2008," she said.
"They paid thousands of dollars for me to be in the hospital all of the time."
A spokesman for Chamberlin's insurer, UnitedHealthcare, said company case managers have offered to help her with the paperwork for an appeal.
"I wish there was a clearer process," said Dale Kurschner, UnitedHealthcare spokesman. "Benefits do get used up. Our care managers spend a lot of time, day in and day out, figuring out how members can get the care they need."
In Massachusetts and across the country, the price tag for end-of-life care is under scrutiny as the population ages, and leaders search for ways to rein in soaring healthcare costs.
Billions of dollars are spent each year in the United States on intensive treatments for aging patients in the last six months of their lives, according to the 2008 Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. A 2007 Duke University study concluded that hospice use reduced Medicare expenditures by an average of $2,309 per hospice user during the last year of life.
"There is that light bulb moment, that a lot of people don't want to die expensively in a way that could bankrupt their families. They would prefer to be at home and be comfortable," said Rigney Cunningham, executive director of the Hospice & Palliative Care Federation of Massachusetts.
Cunningham is a member of a new state panel that is developing proposed regulations to improve end-of-life care in the least expensive way possible.
Chamberlin's hospice has assured her they won't abandon her, but she worries that her daughter and her partner may be saddled with thousands of dollars in unreimbursed hospice bills when she's gone.
Her fears run deep.
"My mother had a gruesome hospital death" from breast cancer, Chamberlin said, describing her mother's struggle to breathe, miserable and surrounded by machines as specialists hovered over her, suctioning fluid from her lungs in her last hours of life.
The experience, she said, persuaded her father to choose home hospice care six years ago as he rapidly declined from congestive heart failure.
"He wanted to die in his bed," she said. "He was relaxed and at peace."
In choosing to follow her father's footsteps, Chamberlin said she never envisioned that her hospice path would include such a battle.
Neither did her primary care provider.
"I have never had an insurance company call me and say a patient has exhausted her hospice," said Nancy Boucher, the administrator at Chamberlin's physician's office, Arlington Family Practice, helping her with her appeal.
"I was devastated when they called me about her case," Boucher said.
"You mean this woman can't have hospice because she didn't die fast enough?"
Increasingly, insurance companies and employers are offering more generous hospice coverage than what is provided in Chamberlin's plan, said Judi Lund Person, a vice president at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.
More typical is coverage for six months of care, with options for extensions.
The majority of patients die within six months, state and national data show, usually because they don't choose hospice until days before their death.
Last Friday, Chamberlin mailed her completed appeal form to UnitedHealthcare.
She explained her diagnosis, detailed her repeated hospitalizations in 2008, and told of her decision, along with her doctors, to choose hospice care instead.
"Although I apparently haven't died fast enough," she wrote in the "reason for request" section, "I do have a terminal illness and will need some method of care."
And she concluded, "Since I become eligible for Medicare in October 2009, the plan's obligations would end then (providing I am still alive.)"
- Posted in

8 Comments so far
Show AllI still think the docs, hospitals and the insurance companies in the states are acting like the armed robber who says 'your money or your life'.
It's strange that the insurance company would rather spend more money sending her to hospital, until you think that the ins company must be getting some sort of kickback from that hospital.
It's also quite strange for a foreigner to hear that you southerners are so willing to accept the idea that health insurance is something that is, or should ever be, a finite thing. For cosmetic surgery, yah, that's something that a person should pay for themselves, but for just about anything else health care should be a right, not a privilage.
Insurance companies have the power over whether we live or die and even how we die. They have much too much power over sacred and personal parts of our lives. Decisions about how we die belong in the hands of patients, their doctors and their families. Even then, there are no easy answers.
How awful that such sensitive decisions are in the hands of bureaucratic bean-counting strangers. Their rules and guidelines are so inflexible that they will fund only institutional solutions, even if they are far more costly than giving a little support for home care.
Joe
This woman's story is a prime example of why Prime Directives regarding end of life care levels are so important for people to fill out with the participation of family and possibly the family lawyer. Also, with single payer she wouldn't have any hassle about how much $$ went to hospice or hospital care.
We don't have a healthcare system; what we have is a gigantic clusterfuck that kills--sort of like the federal government. The question being begged: Is the government even capable of administering a single payer system, since it can't seem to do anything else right, like enforce the law.
"Is the government even capable of administering a single payer system, since it can't seem to do anything else right"
That's a good question. It appears that, currently, fragile cultural barriers are all that prevent the predatory elites from swooping in on Social Security, Medicare and Veterans Admin. The media isn't investigating so we know little about it. But Medicare may be extended to Medicare For All and cover everyone with relative ease, technically. In this case the predatory elites may be tempted to finally bust the barrier and seize control of these public sector pillars. But even if they were kept out, it's doubtful that Medicare could cut healthcare costs by the 2x amount needed to bring US costs in line with those in other countries. Cutting costs is a much greater political challenge, being a mandate to contract the economy, against the elites' religion. But this, universal coverage at 1/2 current cost, should be the people's goal.
There's no money in a dead patient. Hospice threatens to shut off the flow prematurely.
Thank you Judi for all of your fierce advocacy over the years. And even now you continue.
We need a Single Payer system and we need it now. Watch Bill Moyers tonight.
The semantics alone point up the conflict. "Insurance" is not "care." The consumer/patient/victim pays for "insurance" and that's what you get. You pay for some future sum of money to be applied toward your "care." The appropriateness of the care and its relevance to your needs or your wishes is completely beside the point. The contract to pay -- your policy -- is a boilerplate one-size-fits-some, and the final arbiter is an insurance company employee, not an advocate for the patient, not even anyone with first-hand knowledge of the case. First priority in the dynamic is the money -- how much will (won't) the insurance pay, getting the paperwork filed with all signatures, dates, justifications duly recorded. Secondary is the actual care, medications, treatments -- which have to match up with priority one -- the money. This is no way to deliver health care to people.
The Health Care System is sick