OSLERSWEB.COM

Inside the Labyrinth: Osler's Web Updates

UNUM STOCK TANKS AT 3 PM WEDNESDAY

October 21, 2009

Tags: WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR DISABILITY INSURER'S STOCK ON WEDNESDAY?

For all those whose lives have been turned into living hell by their disability insurers; who have been "pauperized" by legal and medical costs as a result of fighting losing battles with disability insurers; who lost their health, then lost their house, trying to win disability benefits; who have felt their footing in life slipping away while their disability insurer waged war on them--take heart.

Something made stockholders start dumping UNUM shares at about 3 pm Wednesday afternoon. UNUM is the largest disability insurer in the world, with ties to the shrink lobby in the UK and a 20-year commitment to making sure no one with "chronic fatigue syndrome" receives disability support.

Did any UNUM stockholders happen to read the Times op-ed today and notice the comment about the CDC's desire in 1987 to protect disability insurers from making "chronic disbursements"?

Did they look at that number--one million Americans sick with a devasting disease that may be about to be resolved by bona fide science? Did they read about the potential "dismantling" of the construct, "chronic fatigue syndrome" and the new name for the disease that afflicts people who are infected with an oncogenic retrovirus?

Did they scratch their chins and start thinking about a fast-approaching day when UNUM might have to start paying out on those claims instead of sending the claiment to search for shelter under the nearest bridge?

Something made stockholders decide to start pulling their money out of UNUM. Wednesday, October 21, 2009. At 3 p.m.

Comments

October 22, 2009 12:40 AM EDT

Having known a patient with UNUM insurance, who almost made it go that bridge under the freeway before she finally got her benefits she had paid for through her job, I can understand how investors might be a little 'sickly' themselve, right now. Only problem is, if UNUM tanks, who will pay the current payees when they get XAND?

Will Congress step up and bail them out? Doubt it; but then they would be abandoning those who may become sick with XAND in the future, wouldn't they.

- Kathryn Stephens
October 22, 2009 4:38 AM EDT

I'm remembering the "Pain Clinics" of the 1980's and 90's (perhaps they are still in operation now), inpatient "multidisciplinary" programs that lured in PWC's (among others) desperate to get their lives back. They typically denied this before intake, but had an "all in your head" model of "unexplained" symptoms. LTD insurance companies footed the bill. Intense physical exercise insured that the PWC's either dropped out early (leaving "against medical advice", hence they could be dropped from the LTD's payouts). Or if they did manage the entire 2-3 weeks they were pronounced "cured, able to go back to work", regardless of the reality that they were probably worse physically than when they entered ("able to go back to work" = can be dropped from insurance payouts). Of the dozen or so PWC's I know who went through these programs, almost all lost their LTD as a result.

- Jason
October 28, 2009 2:34 PM EDT

Kathryn, benefits being paid aren't connected to share price of their stock. Insurance companies have deep investments they tap to pay unexpected events that come up. If people are dumping this stock because of the XMRV news it's just a statement about their belief in near term profit.

- Ken Becker
October 29, 2009 7:18 PM EDT

Hillary Johnson's penchant for exaggeration still hinders her vital message.
For the record, UNUM's stock did not tank. In fact, it remains at the high point over a 52 week period. The first commenter below naturally asked who will pay the payees IF UNUM tanks? UNUM is NOT going to tank. There are regulatory safety nets in place, in the off chance UNUM does tank. Why alarm PWCs unnecessarily, when the truth is scary enough? These headline scares only give fuel to Ms. Johnson's critics.

While there may be a fire, Hillary doesn't hesitate to yell in a crowded theatre.

- Scott Winterbottom
October 31, 2009 9:53 PM EDT

Yeah, so maybe she got one wrong? The whole market tanked that day at 3 pm.

So what.

I see this as one rhinestone on a tray of diamonds. I probably won't always agree with every single thing written on this blog.

But I can't think of a better spokesperson for CFIDS patients and in fact to question if there might be one is quite unnecessary.

If Hillary Johnson hasn't earned the capability to not be tarnished by one iffy item, then no one has.

I thank her for all of her hard work, the importance of which cannot be overstated.

- Jay Spero
November 7, 2009 8:07 AM EST

Hillary: You made the following statement: "Did any UNUM stockholders happen to read the Times op-ed today and notice the comment about the CDC's desire in 1987 to protect disability insurers from making "chronic disbursements"?
Is it possible to find out how you got this information and what happened in 1987 by the CDC that helped the insurance companies to get away from paying out disability benefits? Very curious about this statement and that particular date and what went on behind the scenes. If it is NOT possible to give details I will understand, it just struck me hard as more than curious about that particular year. Thanks so much for fantastic reporting. Glad you are on OUR side!

- Sharon
November 7, 2009 11:45 AM EST

Sharon, in the late 1980s I filed a Freedom of Information Act to get a number of categories of documents from the Centers for Disease Control. Among the groups of documents I asked for was the correspondence among Gary Holmes and a group of academics who discussed, via correspondence, over a period of about a year, what to name (or, some might say, re-name) this disease. Among the concerns expressed in these letters was a pressing need to avoid giving the public any impression that the disease arose from an infectious pathogen, or that it was necessarily even a medical disease. One of the correpsondents, who ultimately asked to have his name removed from the final paper, asked if the correspondents' intent was to create a new cateogry of psychiatric disease.

Another concern expressed by one of the correspondents was a desire to protect insurance companies from making, as he joked in his letter on the subject, "chronic disbursements" to patients.

- Hillary Johnson
November 25, 2009 10:18 AM EST

Thank you Hillary for this response. I would call your findings a "Stunning Indictment" of the role played by the insurance companies and collusion with the CDC. Again - Thanks!

- Sharon