Question:
Is it still true........

I was researching about the 6 month dr. supervised diet documentation for ins. and I came across a letter that stated on 5/29/02 that Walter Lindstrom said it was illegal and discriminatory for ins. companies to require this. Is this still true and if so, can it be used in a letter to the ins. co.??? Thanks, Janet P    — Janet P. (posted on March 12, 2004)

March 11, 2004
I don't know that is illegal but it might be discriminatory. The way I remember it being explained was that most insurances have exclusions for any kind of weight loss -like diet pills, nutrition counseling, exercise equipment, sometimes they will deny to pay if you just go to see your dr and talk about losing weight, you usually have to have another "valid" reason for the appointment and then try to sneak in the diet advice. So Lindstrom's argument (which I think is valid) is that if the ins. companies refuse to pay for any of this to help you lose weight, they should not then put a 6 month dr. supervised diet as a requirement to approve the WLS. They are creating road blocks on purpose. Hope this helps. Good Luck.
   — Ali M

March 11, 2004
I just hate it when I know the answer to something and it's not the answer people want to hear. Anyway - it is not discriminatory or illegal for insurance companies to require a 6 months supervised diet (though most of us feel it should be!!). They are a business and can put any stipulation they want on their policies as long as it is not related to race, religion, creed, nationality, sexual orientation, gender or other protected segment of the population. Unfortunately the obese are currently not a protected segment of the population under ADA unless they are totally disabled by their obesity. Even then the ADA protection only goes so far. But to answer your question technically - it is not illegal or discriminatory for insurance companies to require supervised diets prior to approval for surgical weight loss. Sorry I didn't have a happy answer.
   — ronascott

March 12, 2004
I thank both of you for your answers. I figured it wasn't something that could be used now. Janet P
   — Janet P.

March 13, 2004
My insurance co., Aetna, required it. I don't know if it is illegal or not, but I played their game so I wouldn't hold up my approval any longer. Walter may be right, but it seems to me that we are all just the "little guys" and if we are up against the big insurance giants that kind of litigation could take years. Just my 2 cents worth. Pat F.
   — Patricia F.

Click Here to Return