Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[classicman]

It would seem the supplier is between you and your patient.
If they weren't suing your patient wouldn't have a problem.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

It would seem the supplier is between you and your patient.
If they weren't suing your patient wouldn't have a problem.

Wrong.
Patient wants to buy product.
Supplier wants to sell product.
Provider won't allow the transaction.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Patient wants to buy product.
Supplier wants to sell product.
Provider won't allow the transaction.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Why? Because a frame company that is a subsidiary of VSP infringed on an Aspex patent and Aspex is suing VSP.

[Undertoad]

vsp was a very cool Dwellar back in the day, I wish he would return.

C-man, your objections here don't really parse for me. You are saying that supplier Aspex is at fault for suing?

[classicman]

I'm saying that it is not uncommon in a lawsuit for the party being sued to not be able to "sell" a specific product till the suit is over. Otherwise they could tie the suit up in court while making a profit they are/were not entitled to. Therefore they are not allowed to sell the product and all companies, insurance or otherwise, are probably not allowed to do business with them until the case is settled. Isn't this like standard corporate law?

Until that time the product is essentially unavailable. I think it is probably more due to the wording of the suit in this case anyway. The company that has the patent is protecting themselves.
Blaming the Ins co. in this case makes no sense.

[Undertoad]

A judge can order a restraining order preventing VSP from selling frames the made that are based on the Ampex patent. That's not what we have here. There's no law preventing VSP from doing business with Ampex or vice-versa.

[classicman]

How do you know that?

[classicman]

Sorry to toss this in at this point in the discussion, but I think its warranted.

Some of the country's most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

The companies will continue to cover children who already have child-only policies. They will also accept children with preexisting conditions in new family policies.

Nonetheless, supporters of the new health-care law complain that the change amounts to an end run around one of the most prized consumer protections.

WASHPO

What really gets me about this isn't so much that they are doing it, but that in this gazillion page document, there wasn't a provision forcing them to do so. If you are gonna regulate, do it right at least. Another reason why single payer was the only way to go.

[Undertoad]

Because these kinds of lawsuits happen all the time and insurance companies still do business with everybody. A lawsuit can be initiated by anybody and has no bearing on any other aspect of business.

[classicman]

Ok so if thats true, why do you think its different in this case?

[Undertoad]

It's no different. VSP is permitted to cover Aspex product. They have chosen not to.

[classicman]

Why would they choose not to in this case? Something has got to be different.
This is all I could find.

New York (May 21, 2010) -- A federal judge has endorsed vision insurer Vision Service Plan's argument that it does not have to do business with a courtroom adversary, denying eyeglass maker Aspex Eyewear Inc.'s bid for an injunction to keep it “in-network” while the two engage in patent and antitrust litigation.

Aspex has not shown it is likely to succeed in its antitrust case against VSP, Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California...

Perhaps its because they are no longer an "in-network" provider.
Thats what must have happened.

ETA - just found it - thats what happened.

[Undertoad]

VSP moved Aspex from in-network to not in-network. That is the insurance terminology for VSP saying they are no longer providing insurance for Aspex frames.

[classicman]

OH, I got that now. I didn't get that out of what Spex posted.
I've worked for several and dealt with many insurance companies and providers over the years - in my experience, that happens all the time.

That just happened to a major ambulance company that I had to deal with last year. I hope that my input was part of the reason why they are no longer in-network.
In fact, I hope they go out of business.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm saying that it is not uncommon in a lawsuit for the party being sued to not be able to "sell" a specific product till the suit is over. Otherwise they could tie the suit up in court while making a profit they are/were not entitled to. Therefore they are not allowed to sell the product and all companies, insurance or otherwise, are probably not allowed to do business with them until the case is settled. Isn't this like standard corporate law?

Until that time the product is essentially unavailable. I think it is probably more due to the wording of the suit in this case anyway. The company that has the patent is protecting themselves.
Blaming the Ins co. in this case makes no sense.

The company with the patent, Aspex, is the plaintiff. The defendant, vsp, is punishing Aspex for suing them.

Originally Posted by classicman

What really gets me about this isn't so much that they are doing it, but that in this gazillion page document, there wasn't a provision forcing them to do so.

What gets me is that a company has to be forced to do the right thing.