Harvoni Denied Claim Legal News Articles & Interviews

Indianapolis, IN: Although most of the news regarding denied Harvoni insurance claims and resulting lawsuits involves private insurance providers, it appears Medicaid is also denying patients necessary Harvoni treatment. Patients allege Medicaid and other insurance providers are playing with their lives by deeming the hepatitis C treatment not medically necessary.

Washington, DC: In the wake of a congressional inquiry into prices and pricing strategy inherent with hepatitis blockbuster drugs Harvoni and Sovaldi, comes damning insight into the workings of a manufacturer pricing a drug through the stratosphere - its expectations for a backlash and its plan for damage control. The revelation should provide added fodder for plaintiffs and their attorneys embroiled in Harvoni Lawsuits.

Washington, DC: While most Harvoni Denied Insurance Claim Lawsuits take issue with insurance companies that balk at approving Harvoni treatment for hepatitis C in spite of medical need, one must only look at the pricing strategy maintained by Harvoni manufacturer Gilead for clues that could lead to another smoking gun.

San Francisco, CA: Yet another Gilead Hep C Denied Insurance Claim Lawsuit was quietly rolled out in July, accusing a noted health insurer of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and other violations of a contractual nature, related to the alleged withholding of Harvoni treatment for hepatitis C.

Boston, MA Inmates are people too. And they get sick; with a sizeable number infected with hepatitis C. Prison populations are among the most infected, requiring treatment. However, the problems many plaintiffs are having with the inability to access the effective but expensive Harvoni drug are also being felt by those in the penal system. To that end, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ 6/11/15) reports that two inmates have launched a Gilead Hep C Denied Insurance Claim Lawsuit.

Baltimore, MD There are few business relationships as fraught with controversy as the relationships between healthcare providers and insurance companies. As illustrated in the Harvoni case, battle lines get drawn quickly. Add patients and a drug company into the mix and it would be difficult to find more complex relationships. Unfortunately, in these situations, the patient is stuck in the middle hoping for potentially life-saving treatment and wondering why profits are being put before patients.

Washington, DC Advocates who rail against Harvoni Denied Insurance claims make the point that yes, Harvoni is an extremely expensive drug costing as much as $94,500 for a single round of treatment. However, when compared to the cost of a liver transplant, the Harvoni option is a bargain.

Washington, DC Lawsuits have been filed against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and insurers, alleging patients have been unfairly restricted access to Harvoni, putting them at risk of serious health problems. While those lawsuits gather momentum, news has emerged that Gilead Sciences, maker of Harvoni, has now restricted access to its hepatitis C medication, further fanning the flames of anger about the drug.

Hartford, CT It is difficult to know what is really motivating two public health groups bent on finding out why Harvoni, the blockbuster Hep C drug, is so darned expensive. But one can assume, given a rise in denied claims and corresponding Harvoni Denied Insurance Claim Lawsuits, that Treatment Action Group (TAG) and the Global Health Justice Partnership (GHJP) can envision on the horizon a pattern of denied claims as insurance providers balk at the expense inherent to Harvoni.

Los Angeles, CA A Gilead Hep C Denied Insurance Claim Lawsuit recently filed in California state court appears to be a template for an issue expected to dominate discussion and debate: what role does an insurer have in treatment decisions, and how much of a factor does cost play? In a world of generics where insurers have less costly alternatives available, some treatment options are unique and without peer. If that treatment happens to be expensive, but there is no alternative, does an insurer have the right to deny treatment through a peerless treatment option, simply due to the expense?