Page 4 of 5   <       >

Once Health Regulators, Now Partners

David Shipp was forced to sue Medicare officials to find out why his wife died. He won, but they refused to provide details.
David Shipp was forced to sue Medicare officials to find out why his wife died. He won, but they refused to provide details. (By David R. Lutman For The Washington Post)
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Rollow said he could not explain the wide variations. Medicare says its follow-up interviews with patients who complain show that they mostly are content with the process but that only 42 percent are satisfied with the outcome.

Shipp, the Louisville man trying to learn about his wife's death, was dissatisfied from beginning to end.

Before his lawsuit, Medicare took the position that patients are not entitled to know the outcome of their review. Shipp and his attorney, Amanda Frost of Public Citizen, won that concession in 2003, but not before spending four years in federal court.

"They fought us all of the way," said Frost, now a professor at American University's law school. "They were willing to argue clearly-losing issues just to delay us from getting anything."

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a lower-court ruling entitling Shipp to an answer, Medicare said the decision applied only to future complaints. "It was a ridiculous argument," Frost said. "The judge decided with us again."

At the time, Shipp thought he had scored a victory for patients' rights. But when he received the terse August 2003 form letter from his QIO, he wasn't so sure. There were no details. To this day, Shipp is unsure whether anything happened to his wife's doctors.

Debbie Pelkie, who oversees complaint reviews for Shipp's QIO, Health Care Excel, said that Medicare's rules prohibit her group from releasing such details unless the doctors agree. But in this case they didn't.

"If that's what Mr. Shipp is wanting," she said, "that's not possible."

Pelkie said that under the QIO's procedures, the review of the case is written by the staff and then shown to the doctors . A doctor is "not given the power to change the language to his liking," she said, but can opt to keep the details secret.

The letter warned Shipp not to disclose the doctors' names without their consent.

"I guess you can say I opened up the process a little," he said. "But we still can't find out what goes on behind the closed doors."

Shipp said he was discouraged to learn that the system favors health care providers over consumers.


<             4        >


© 2005 The Washington Post Company