Of course it does. The patients wanted care early enough to save their live. They denied them that care. Hypothetical care after death is worthless.

Whether they denied that care by not paying for it (which means people could have gotten that care if they would have had the means), or by limiting the amount of care in a period of time, doesn't really matters for the person who didn't get it.

Why do you think the healthcare resources (number of beds, hospitals etc) are limited? Why isn't there a second hospital?

By the way, would they have paid for an operation in a different country if space would be available there? No? So they denied that healthcare.

Except it just doesn't, denial of claim has a very specific meaning, there's no reason to go all philosophical.

I'm sure there's plenty of cases where United health approved the claim and the patient also didn't get treated in time, it doesn't count as a denied claim.

This sub-thread is about denying healthcare. Not about denying claims. In fact, denying a claim (i.e. payment for healthcare services) has the moral implications discussed here mainly if not only because denial of payment is tantamount to denial of healthcare.