miss horton, would you mind being first? would you pull that mike forward and turn on the green button there. it doesn't pick up as well as it should. >> can you hear me now? >> we can hear you. thank you. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i want to start by thanking the committee for this opportunity to testify this morning. i am very pleased that congress has decided to take a close look at recision, so that it can understand just how damaging this practice has been to so many people across the country. when blue cross canceled my coverage, i had no idea what recision meant. but now after my life has been turned upside down for the past four years, i've come to understand what a despicable practice it is. insurance companies require you to fill out an application that is deliberately confusing. and they don't do anything to make sure you understood the questions, or that you supplied all the information they need to decide whether they want to insure you or not. they just accept you, and accept your premium checks. it

horton? >> i think it's all about the money. >> ms. raddatz? >> [inaudible] it is absolutely about the money dewitt >> ms. beaton? >> absolutely, they will just keep on taking your money. >> each of you as i listened, ms. beaton, you were and are in, ms. raddatz, you are an attorney and as horton, you have family in the field of radiology. they don't have the ways or means or knowledge to take the steps necessary. they don't know -- i know hundreds of attorneys. i've been practicing for a lengthy period of time. they don't know the people i know so what do they do? degette the letter and they don't get the treatment they need and many of these people died and they think that's because they just don't know what to do, and i believe honestly that the insurance companies depend upon that lack of knowledge and lack of law, federal laws in place, and that's one of the ways they encourage profits. >> ms. beaton, do you want to add anything? >> i was going to say that a lot of people in my cancer group get letters like this, they just give up. they fa

horton? >> they fall through the cracks. there's nothing -- even having radiologyists in my family i didn't have the opportunity to consult them before filling out the application. they live across the country with children and work all the time. i don't know what those people would do. >> ms. raditz? >> as i stated in my testimony, my brother was very fortunate because of the fact that i have education and i know lots of people. and even all the attorneys that i know, and judges who i went to ask for help, did not know what to do in a situation other than go through the court system. unfortunately, when you have cancer or you're in a position where your life is shortened to a matter of months, you can't go through the court system. you don't have the time to do that. what do people do? many, many people throughout the united states do nothing because they don't have the ways or the means or the knowledge to take the steps necessary. they don't know all the -- i know hundreds of attorneys i've been practicing a lengthy perio

horton you stated that you think the applications are deliberately confusing. i've looked through some of those and i understand what you mean. could you be a little more specific. the kinds of question that is you found difficult and confusing? >> i haven't looked at the application in four years since i first filled it out so i can't be superspecific. but i do remember them, you know, after looking at it again with my sister and brother-in-law, they both said you need to be a doctor or lawyer to figure out the application and fill it o

horton and ms. raddatz that we can fix this system without, as they say turning it over lock, stock and barrel to federal bureaucracy that routinely is going to ration of the people on the waiting list, but we will get into that later and i want to thank all three of you for being here today and giving us such compelling testimony. >> please do not accept mr. gingrey's description of a possible healthcare plan for a nation based upon those comments. some of this on your side see the little differently but mr. walden for questions please. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the-- another hearing i am involved then upstairs but i read your testimony this morning, and so i appreciate, appreciate what you have been through all the none of us can understand what it is like to be in your shoes or that of your loved ones. it is not a good thing. and so, i want to thank, we had to physicians here, both dr. gingrey had and my colleague from texas, dr. burgess and i think that is good to have. i hope that

horton. ms.our opening statement -- and thank you for being here. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you to all the members of the committee for your kind words and wonderful statements. my name is peggy raddatz and i am appearing today to testify on behalf of my brother. my brother abbas e-business owner of a restaurant she ran with his wife. he purchased a health insurance policy in august

horton, i didn't get to you. it's not that i was afraid but i didn't have an opportunity.thank you for your testimony. it was all very important today. thank you, mr. chairman. i'll yield back. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i'll direct my questions to ms. baiten. am pr am i pronouncing it right? >> it doesn't matter. >> ms. baiten, we heard and listened very intensely to your testimony and quite compelling and i wanted to take one quote from your written testimony and i think you said when you get on a waiting list cancer grows. and i think that was in reference to the fact that as you just testified to doctor burgess that you were on that waiting list at the county hospital. there was an alternative but, thank god that your congressman and my colleague, joe barton was able to intervene and you got the care at the private hospital and by your physician that you trusted and wanted to do the surgery. this statement you made is absolutely right. i don't know if you know it but i'm a physician, too. an obgyn doctor. your statement is a profound one, indeed. when you get an a wai

horton's case, i am not familiar with the specifics. i'm sorry. >> mr. barton, for questions, please. >> thank you, i wanted to thank our witnesses for being here, it -- this is a difficult situation. but, i listened when you answered chairman stupak's question about unintentional omissions. and to your credit you are honest, that you would reserve the right to still rescind some of these policies. doesn't it bother you that people are going to die? because you insist on reviewing a policy that somebody took out in good faith and forgot to tell you that they were being treated for acne? doesn't that bother you? >> yes, sir, it does. and we regret the necessity that that has to occur even a single time. and we have made suggestions, that would reform the system, such that that would no longer be needed. >> well, you know, i haven't heard your opening statements, i glanced at them and i haven't heard the first round of questions, we understand the need to verify that people are telling the truth. we are not asking you guys to -- the insurance industry to a

horton you stated that you think the applications are deliberately confusing. i've looked through some of those and i understand what you mean. could you be a little more specific. the kinds of question that is you found difficult and confusing? >> i haven't looked at the application in four years since i first filled it out so i can't be superspecific. but i do remember them, you know, after looking at it again with my sister and brother-in-law, they both said you need to be a doctor or lawyer to figure out the application and fill it out 100% accuracy. >> how would each of you improve that application process? it seems to me that that's the crux of the argument here. there are thing that is you didn't know oh throw are things that you didn't know that were on your loved one record that is they didn't know. how can you claim knowledge of something you have no knowledge of. that, to me is one point here. and then the second is, to know as a layperson, if you were on some medication years ago and you haven't taken it in a long time, it would be easy to forget th

it is scott horton, a lawyer, professor at hofstra university, and he is a columnist for "harper's," perhaps the leading scholar of the critic of the u.s. justice department's misconduct in various ways and rigorous recording, applying it to these cases. scott, you came a long way to be with us. what is it you would like to share? >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you for that introduction, andrew. i would like to bring the focus of our talk today a little bit more narrowly down to the question of prosecutorial misconduct. and your note to vary collectively -- very correctly that prosecutors wield enormous power in our system. i think that is something that few people other than those who are directly engaged in it really appreciate. to a certain extent, that is a good thing because the prosecutor should be there protecting us and dealing with criminal elements. but, power also presents a great risk of abuse. unless this power is held in check, and really enforced by the justice department itself, abuse follows. i want to note that at the outset, are really remarkable speech that was

horton and mr. raddatz where the threat or actual termination of insurance policies cause pain, frustration and great expense. we may be here to discuss valid uses for procedural aspects of recisions, medical underwriting, and other corporate practices. there are some actions we should no longer allow insurance companies to do. playing gotcha with policyholders who have serious illnesses and huge expenses must stop. insurance companies cannot wait until customers are sick or filing claims to verify their medical history and decide whether or not they want them as a customer. this is what they're supposed to be doing when they sign the member up. if the company does not conduct a review of unclear or incomplete information on the application, then the plan should not use subsequently acquired information as a basis for rescinding coverage. this practice is known as post-claims underwriting. the company should conduct its due diligence at the time the application is filled out and submitted prior to i

it reminds me of a friend of us, miles horton, who founded a school when he was dying. he sat down with him and were going over pictures from the civil rights movement. highlander was the center of the civil rights activities in the south and a marvelous place and miles was a real hero in american history. we were going through some pictures and found a picture of a billboard that was very popular in the south in the 60s and it was picture of martin luther king as a young age sitting at a highlander workshop and the banner above the bill board said, martin luther king at communist training school,

horton's case. you know, i... you heard her situation. you heard her fear. she'll never get offered coverage again. is that right? >> i agree, it should be something that should be investigated. and considered. >> most of your company policies approve a decision to rescind if an applicant made any material misrepresentations or omissions in the application, and i understand that, how does your company ensure the applicant was aware of the notation or condition found in his or her medical records and we have had testimony along those lines and we have seen them in the files where they say, you know, my doctor never told me that and we have letters from physicians, who say, that is correct. i make notes all the time in the medical files and i didn't tell the patient that. how -- where is this balance here? mr. hamm? >> we have a very fair and thorough process of determining if there was a material misrepresentation, a process involved, several layers review and a review panel in concluding a medical doctor and in that process we gather all the available inform