But I wonder if all of their anger is properly directed? Everyone is pointing fingers at Cigna right now, saying things like Cigna “maliciously killed her,” or “there’s no reason that the doctors’ judgment should be overrided (sic) by a bean counter sitting there in an insurance office.”

As I read more about the story, I grow less and less ready to hang Cigna out to dry. This article makes me question the timeline.

The Sarkisyan family claims that Cigna first agreed to the liver transplant surgery and had secured a match weeks ago. After the teen, who was battling leukemia, received a bone marrow transplant from her brother, however, she suffered a lung infection, and the insurer backed away from what it felt had become too risky a procedure.

OK, is “weeks ago” more than the 9 days between the 11 Dec letter and her death? The whole timeline just isn’t making sense to me. Did the lung infection cause the liver failure? Or did that infection make Cigna see other issues? I’m reading that doctors had coverage and the go-ahead at some point, and had a viable organ at some point, but somewhere along the line, they lost coverage. Then what happened to that viable organ? Was it lost? Did other patients get it? And if the doctors were so certain that the transplant would work, then why didn’t they go ahead with the surgery, and work out payment details later? FWIW, the average cost of a liver transplant is about $450k.

As one poster said at Global Affairs, there is plenty of blame to go around; I’m not sure Cigna deserves as much as they’re getting. They’re an easy target, because they’re the big evil corporation. But maybe they’re not as evil on this one as everyone wants them to be.