Breastfeeding infant labeled obese, denied health insurance

what a horrible story (4.00 / 1)

There may be more to it than that...the family may be somehow overfeeding the kid (though that's not at all the only possibility here) but to deny a child health insurance because of weight is unconscionable.

I'm a single payer advocate, though. So I think it's ALL unconscionable.

This story is particularly egregious, though.  

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:34:20 AM UTC

overfeeding (4.00 / 2)

I don't know, isn't breastfeeding somewhat self-limiting?

The Post won't let me in to read the article right now. I'll be interested in seeing more detail. I wonder how big the baby was at birth.

---

by: count @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:27:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

8 1/2 lbs at birth (4.00 / 3)

17 lbs at 4 mos. Keep in mind, he is also in the 99th for height. Also, the parents are not overweight and neither is their other child. Sounds like this baby, like all babies, is growing to his own tune ;) The parents claim he's getting pretty active, lots of leg and arm movement, and they figure he'll slim down when he gets mobile. Again, just like many babies do.  

---

by: nycstray @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 16:18:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

oh, I see (4.00 / 2)

they're only looking at weight and not adjusting for other outlier characteristics.

Brilliant.

count also makes a good point that if the baby is only being breastfed, to refuse insurance because of diet is (I'll say) quite mad.

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 20:54:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seems to me (4.00 / 3)

The insurance companies should just stay the f*ck out of it.

So I guess the rule for obesity is: you ate, therefore, it's a pre-existing condition?

Hmm, I've been skinny my whole life. I guess that's a pre-existing condition also.

---

by: nycstray @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 21:42:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I just read through the comments (4.00 / 3)

at the article:

What calculator were they using? Any one I tried says he is 90-95% for weight to length ratio. My 4 boys were all big at birth and chunky breastfeed infants. All started walking at 10 months and slimmed right down, so much so my pediatrician worried that one would continue to decline in weight if I nursed after his first birthday. I was vindicated because this was the time studies showed extended breastfeeding could prevent later obesity.

What chart are they using? From the ones at WHO.int he's under the 95th percentile! In fact I can't find any that would put him over.

And for his age, he's in about the 80% percentile.

This article minimizes the impact of health insurance denial on adult Americans with a BMI of 30 or over. Readers should check out the BMI Project (http://kateharding.net/bmi-illustrated/), a slideshow of photos that show you what different BMI's really look like on people: you'll see that a BMI of 30 is not what most of us think of as "obese." Hence, there are a lot of adults who are being denied health insurance for weight.

Bolds are mine :)

---

by: nycstray @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 21:52:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well done (4.00 / 1)

I'm sure the insurance companies have whole buildings full of people paid to invent these sorts of excuses to deny coverage.

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 00:05:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

hard to overfeed (4.00 / 2)

an exclusively breastfed baby. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just unlikely.

It's easier to overfeed a formula-fed baby, but even then it's far more likely than a big chubby formula-fed four-month-old is simply growing normally.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 17:41:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Change is good. (4.00 / 2)

Colorado insurer changes course on fat infants

The company attributed the boy's rejection for health coverage to "a flaw in our underwriting system."

I'm just guessing - when the insurance company's medical director read the application, he overlooked the box that said the father was a TV news anchor. I'd think that insurance companies would stop doing things like this while the health reform debate is going on. They must know that these stories are what make the rest of us so furious.

---

by: count @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 23:49:59 PM UTC

Interesting (4.00 / 3)

The insurer said Monday it would change its policy for babies that are healthy but fat. The company attributed the boy's rejection for health coverage to "a flaw in our underwriting system."

First off, calling the baby obese/fat is just wrong. It's a big baby looking at the pic, but doesn't stike me as obese/fat. And I like the way they threw "healthy" in there. Means they will just find other ways to define healthy and deny.

---

by: nycstray @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 04:27:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whoa! Let's do the math (4.00 / 1)

If insurers don't take babies above the 95th percentile, that means that 5% of all babies in the United States are being denied health insurance.  Given that there were 4 million babies born in the US in 2006 (US Statistical Abstract), that would be 200,000 Alex Langes. If one in 20 are uninsured for size, that's about one per classroom.   We'd all know an uninsured Alex Lange or three.  

I don't know what happened to this family, (and I would not be surprised if they were treated badly by the insurer,)  but this journalist didn't get to the bottom of it.  As written, this just doesn't make sense.

---

by: michaelindc @ Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:51:21 AM UTC