Homeopathy "accreditation" help please

[CriticalThanking]

I recently asked my insurance provider why they made/offered/supported homeopathic remedies available from a discount pharmacy company. In their response, they claim they do not endorse any products, that the outside vendor is accredited, talk to your physician, don't blame us, etc. Would someone comment as to whether this passes a smell test? Have any of you talked to your insurance carrier about homeopathy and gotten a response?

Before I start digging, is anyone familiar with the particular accreditation stuff they are talking about?

Thanks,

CT

Their initial member notification:

Aetna members can save an additional 8% off their Vitacost purchase and can also receive a special price on the Philips AVENT Great Beginnings set.
Vitacost carries over 6,000 nutritional and homeopathic products from 180 top brands. With savings of up to 75% off retail prices, Vitacost offers the value and selection you are looking for. Order online or on the phone at [snipped] and be sure to use promo code [snipped] to receive an additional 8% off your entire Vitacost purchase.

My letter:

I am curious as to why Aetna chooses to offer support for "medications" it surely knows at best to be no better than placebo. Homeopathic remedies never show results better than placebo in randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies. You are supporting members paying for remedies that do nothing. At worst, homeopathic remedies delay people from seeking real treatment for serious conditions.

All homeopathy means is that some substance was diluted some number of times (ignoring conflicting homeopath claims about "potentising", "succussion", or "provings"), usually to concentrations so low that the odds are that not a single molecule of the original substance remains. If you have peer-reviewed, published papers from reputable journals that show otherwise, I would love to know about them. It is my understanding that you regularly track which FDA-approved medications are being prescribed to be sure they are being used for appropriate conditions for which you will reimburse. Why take a blanket approach and support remedies for which there is no evidence provided via proper FDA trials?

How do you ensure your vendors are providing quality medicines? If you have any way of distinguishing between stock solvent and a properly prepared homeopathic preparation greater than 12C/24X dilution, you can claim your Nobel Prize, or you can claim your million dollars at http://www.randi.org/research/index.html.

I am very interested in Aetna's official position on homeopathic remedies. Why subsidize the cost of ineffective medications? This a case in which, in my opinion, you could improve care and lower costs by not covering homeopathic remedies. Please save money and lower our insurance rates: provide proof of efficacy or stop supporting homeopathic remedies.

Thanks,

[CT]

Their response:

Dear Lawrence Stein:

Thank you for using the Aetna Navigator website to contact Aetna Member
Services.

The Natural Products and Services program is a reduced-rate program.
Aetna does not pay or reimburse members or providers for any services
received through this program. Participating professionals and vendors
are solely responsible for the services and products they provide.
Providers are credentialed using ASH Networks' credentialing policies
and procedures, which are consistent with URAC accreditation and NCQA
certification requirements.

By making these services available at reduced rates, Aetna DOES NOT
endorse these professionals and vendors, or their services and does not
guarantee their availability, quality of the services or any outcomes.
Aetna gives no warranty, expressed or implied, for any products or
services purchased or provided through the Natural Products and Services
program. Aetna does not recommend the self-management of health problems
and does not promote any particular form of therapy. You should consult
your doctor for the advice and care appropriate for your specific
medical needs. While this information is believed to be accurate as of
this date, it is subject to change.

[irrelevant contact info snipped]

Sincerely,
Internet Response Team
Aetna

 

[drkitten]

I recently asked my insurance provider why they made/offered/supported homeopathic remedies available from a discount pharmacy company. In their response, they claim they do not endorse any products, that the outside vendor is accredited, talk to your physician, don't blame us, etc. Would someone comment as to whether this passes a smell test? Have any of you talked to your insurance carrier about homeopathy and gotten a response?

I suspect that this is actually a moneymaker for them, that the quacks are paying them a hefty fee for the privilege of using the insurance company as a direct marketing channel. If AETNA gets a 10% cut of all the orders written with Vitacost, that can add up to a hefty chunk of change taken more or less straight out of the profit margins of Vitacost.

Of course, they make it back up in volume.

I doubt you'll get very far tilting at this particular windmill.

 

[CriticalThanking]

I suspect that this is actually a moneymaker for them, that the quacks are paying them a hefty fee for the privilege of using the insurance company as a direct marketing channel. [snip]

I doubt you'll get very far tilting at this particular windmill.

You are likely correct. I can only think of a few reasons they would do this as something separate from their covered (reimbursed) benefits: 1) they are getting paid by the pharmacy, 2) by agreeing to push this high margin crap, they get a better deal on real pharmaceuticals, 3) the believe in this crap, and/or 4) they don't think there is a downside as some patients will be happy with it and are substituting it for reimbursable benefits.

As for tilting at windmills, I don't think I can change anything as big as [ominous reverb]Aetna policy[/reverb] by myself. I see this as both personal education and as being one more attempted voice of reason.

Thanks,

CT

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I have in the past by friends, business associates, my spouse and assorted enemies been accused of being not just a skeptic but, even worse, a cynic.

My cut on the promotion of woo by medical insurers is the it is cost effective for them. If an insured person is sick with cancer and goes to an altmed "practitioner" to be treated with gunga-gunga root extract and colonic "cleansing" with stale coffee emema they will surely die within a short period. Total cost -- a couple of hundred bucks to the wooster for his services and a few tens of dollars for the roots and coffee. If the person goes to a real doctor, he will end up taking all sorts of tests, seeing expensive specialists, getting expensive medicines and operations, and taking up hospital bed space. Total cost -- thousands of dollars with a good possiblity he will live and require more insured services. If you were without conscience and running the insurance company, which approach would you suggest?

Note, too, this can be to your benefit. With all the money saved by using the altmed crap, the insurer can afford to pay for the real stuff for you.

YMMV.