I'm confused. An insurance company cannot reject a prescription. They can only reject paying for it.
So if you're paying for it with Hims why wouldn't you be willing to pay for the medication the doctor prescribes to you if the insurance company is refusing to pay for it?
> An insurance company cannot reject a prescription. They can only reject paying for it.
That's a distinction without meaning. Say an insurer won't pay for cancer treatments. Although they're not technically telling you that you can't have the treatment, for all practical purposes they absolutely are (unless you're so rich you can eat the cost).
The article talks about Semaglutide, which is $750/month from a traditional pharmacy after UnitedHealthcare rejects paying for it, or $300/month from Hims. If you believe the medicine's substantially the same between those sources, why wouldn't you take the $5400/year out of pocket discount?
The egregiously heinous thing, in my view, is how a half dozen states still have some kind of health insurance mandate in their laws, and up until 2019 the ACA required all Americans carry it.
Yeah, please don't repeat this. This is the same thing that insurers say to Congress for other things too. "We're not denying care, we're just not going to be the ones paying for it", be it cardiac surgery, or (in the case of United) even Heli EMS from MVAs, because it wasn't "pre-authorized".
I’m not sure what exactly the issue is. The doctor prescribes and the prescription never gets filled. I assume the insurance said no and the pharmacy just decided not to fill it, they’re pretty inconsistent about what information they give out.
So if you're paying for it with Hims why wouldn't you be willing to pay for the medication the doctor prescribes to you if the insurance company is refusing to pay for it?