Case Study:

Independence Blue Cross

"Don't Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining" - Judge Judith Susan Sheindlin

Please come back often. I will be updating this website as much as possible. I will provide all pertinent factual information to support my claims.

Order of events:

▪ I managed a diabetes diagnosis for 14 years under the Aetna insurance provider.

▪ I began an insurance plan with Independence Blue Cross September 2016

▪ For the first seven months, I was denied access to insulin as "not medically necessary".

▪ I called Independence Blue Cross to complain about the denials on the following three dates: 8/31/2017, 9/1/2017, 9/8/2017

▪ I then received this notice in the mail from the state of Pennsylvania.

▪ When I presented the documents to my doctor for submission, I received the following forms.

Let's examine the form in more detail: It has four damning entries on it. Three instances of "Symptomatic Hyperglycemia". Those three dates correspond directly with three days that I called Independence Blue Cross to complain about the insulin being processed improperly. The fourth item is a very strange and interesting claim that I am not able to see peripherally beyond 120 °. When the doctor handed me the filled in forms, she educated me that the process in the state of Pennsylvania is "blind". That is to say we will never know who filed the original complaint. We did, however discuss pressure from Independence Blue Cross. Dr Robson also informed me that we could greatly discredit the form by having a perimeter test. There is a highly sophisticated technical test that can measure precisely one's peripheral vision. However, she indicated that there are few of the machines in the region and getting access to the test is lengthy. That's why I'm grateful she used her influence as a doctor and her personal relationship with Dr John Witherell, of Ophthalmic Surgical Associates Incorporated, located at the Crozer Keystone Hospital facility in Chester Pennsylvania, to conduct the test on an accelerated timeline. The test confirmed her suspicion, there is no issue with peripheral vision whatsoever.

Conclusion: The form is not real. The form was not used as intended. I have never met a medical professional whom agrees with it. Or a judge for that matter. This is not an oversight. There is no concern for safety. The form shown here is an intentional, nefarious, weaponization of a Pennsylvania safety program. And it should concern citizens that it originated at Independence Blue Cross. I called my health insurance company to complain about poor service, and faced a costly and traumatic legal battle thereafter. And for the next 6+ years, I have not been able to get any guidance from Independence Blue Cross to prevent reoccurrence or any closure on this issue. Everything went through Independence Blue Cross. They are the only organization I called on the 3 dates listed. In addition, on those dates, I did not see any medical providers whatsoever. I was not observed. No blood work was taken. No vital signs were monitored. All I did was call the customer service department at Independence Blue Cross. It is important for the reader to learn that health insurance companies can wield significant damaging legal power. I have not had safe, affordable access to health insurance since I began my relationship with Independence Blue Cross. As a result, my pre-existing diabetes, heart disease, nerve disorder, and macular edema diagnoses have continued to progress untreated. All the while, pleading with the executive board of the organization to allow me safe access to healthcare. I have met with only ignorance and arrogance. The company is ignorant (they claim), to the matter, and arrogant in their position that they are not involved.

I admit, the attack was brilliant:

▪ Most people who lose their license for medical reasons never get it back.
▪ They had in their possession official information that indicated I was "non-compliant" with diabetes treatment, as they were the entity causing the non-compliance. They denied me access to insulin for at least nine months, and then orchestrated a complaint against someone who needs insulin and isn't taking it. It's that simple.
▪ They possessed both motive and opportunity to commit the action. The motive is financial incentive, while the opportunity is their position between the patient and the doctor, access to diagnosis information, and the ability to act autonomously without being held responsible for any actions they take.

AI Art: A dark and dreary cemetary lined with blue and white bicycles.

Why has Independence Blue Cross invested in a bicycle company while refusing to manage the core business?

AI Art: Blue Bicycles in a cemetary.