[ad_1]
Outrage has generated the case of a man of 72 year old suffering from leukemia, and to whom the Isapre CruzBlanca has avoided covering his medical expenses.
Proof of this was the company’s appeal to a resolution of the Santiago Court of Appeals that ordered him to take over the treatment.
The annoyance of some people by the situation was immediate, who expressed their discontent through social networks.
An example of this was the deputy of the Democratic Revolution, Maite Orsini, who through her Twitter account indicated that “due to access to a high-value medicine it is torn between life and death “.
Along these lines, he added that “on the one hand, the public system, limited, precarious and that it hardly covers some medicines, some diseases “.
For access to a high-value medicine, one is torn between life and death. On the one hand, the public system, limited, precarious and that barely covers some medicines, some diseases. https://t.co/6LTt6jXlhi
– Maite Orsini Pascal (@MaiteOrsini) November 14, 2020
“How can we trust you if this happens?”. Another person questioned CruzBlanca through the same social network.
Isapre @ICruzBlanca how can we trust you if this happens ??? https: //t.co/FjQYqs7kqB
– Francisco Jaramillo (@jaramillo_fco) November 14, 2020
A similar position was taken by another user, who pointed out that “Because of things like these, the current constitution doesn’t work.”.
For things like these is that the current constitution does not work https://t.co/3SWbvH4G9b through @biobio
– Gustavo Medina (@gusmedinag) November 14, 2020
“As long as health continues to be a business and the right to life does not exist, we will continue to be screwed forever”criticized another person.
#HealthAlert As long as health continues to be a business and the right to life does not exist, we will continue forever screwed@ICruzBlancathey deserve the worst !!!! #WhiteCross https://t.co/eZI7RS1fUW
– Claudio Robles Santos (@ ClaudioRoblesS3) November 14, 2020
Background
Concerned by the decision of your insurer, JMGC (72) -diagnosed in 2011 of chronic lymphocytic leukemia- decided to initiate a lawsuit against the company seeking to obtain financing for the Ibruntinib, which would allow him to treat the pathology according to the Medical Committee that evaluated his case.
It is a drug whose monthly cost is around the $ 9 million 600 thousand, money that isapre, part of the BUPA Group (British United Provident Association), is not willing to disburse if ordered to do so by a court.
On August 8 of this year, the patient’s lawyer -Samuel Donoso Boassi- filed an appeal for protection before the Santiago Court of Appeals, arguing that CruzBlanca used a “Solely and exclusively economic, regulatory and formalistic” to deny you coverage.
The remedy allows nothing more and nothing less than to save the patient’s life, which is why – according to the appeal – what was done by isapre “constitutes an illegal and arbitrary action” that violates the right of JMGC to life and physical and mental integrity, the right to equality before the law, the right of access to health, and the right of property over intangible things ”.
After the green light was given to the admissibility of the appeal, and in parallel, the isapre offered an extrajudicial treatment where they offered provide partial coverage of the treatment, in principle for 3 months.
“After evaluating your particular situation, our Medical Technical Committee has determined to grant an exception coverage, extra-contractual and voluntary, of 90% with a ceiling of $ 4,000,000 per month, for 3 months of treatment initially “, indicated from the company.
Although on Friday, November 6, the Third Chamber of the capital court decided to accept the protection appeal, deciding to order CruzBlanca to grant coverage of the drug, the company’s lawyer appealed the sentence, arguing that there is no arbitrariness or illegality on the part of its represented.
BioBioChile contacted the communications department of isapre CruzBlanca and tried on more than one occasion to access a statement from the company on this particular case, however the entity He chose to remain silent on the issue and continue to fight judicially against his affiliate.
[ad_2]
