Skip to main content

State Stings Aetna for Misleading Students

By MOLLY HAMILL

BOSTON (CN) - Aetna Life Insurance will pay restitution and $1 million in penalties in a consent judgment with Massachusetts, for failing to cover required medical services and deceptively marketing itself to college students.

The commonwealth's complaint in Suffolk County Court enumerate a litany of deceptive acts, including denial of required benefits for mental illness, for maternity-related matters and newborns, and for mammograms and outpatient contraceptive services.

Also on the list was misrepresentation of terms of coverage for hospice services, emergency services and prosthetic devices, among others. In Massachusetts, full-time and some part-time students at institutions of higher learning are required to participate in a qualifying student health insurance program, unless the requirement is waived because they have comparable coverage.

From 2007 to 2010 Aetna insured 30,000 college students at 13 Massachusetts colleges and universities-the top health insurer of students in the state, according to the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy.

In a marketing flyer aimed at college students state, Aetna claims that its policy would provide 100 coverage after an $8 to $10 co-pay or deductible for physician office visits - but it did not mention a general limitation on outpatient benefits, or one specific to physician office visits.

The policy actually covered only $1,500 maximum per covered accident or sickness for outpatient benefits, including office visits, according to Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Coakley says Aetna violated consumer protection laws by failing to disclose its significant limitations on plans, and by issuing policies that excluded coverage of pre-existing conditions without regard to prior coverage.In another flyer, the Hartford, Conn.-based insurer claimed: "Your school endorsed Student Health Insurance Plan offers you: Aggregate maximum of $500,000," though in fact the policy contained an aggregate maximum of $50,000.

Under the consent judgment decree, Aetna will pay a minimum of $500,000 to compensate consumers and $500,000 to the Commonwealth, and another $55,000 for the costs of the investigation.

Aetna must contact consumers who are entitled to relief.

Source: Courthouse News Service

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...