1. It's explicitly stated, including by the doctor involved, that this is a "groundbreaking" (read: experimental) procedure, having been performed exactly twice in the US this century.
2. The doctor even says "he can somewhat understand the insurance company’s initial reluctance at coverage".
3. The insurance company denied it because "unproven health services is not a covered benefit" - this is expected, the insurance company can't just take a single doctor's word that "it'll totally work, I'm super good at this surgery".
4. The insurance company ended up approving her claim.
Yah, that's a mistake (or lie) by the article; from your CNN article, she was initially put on the transplant list on Feb 2, and ended up approved by mid-May (it's after May 2, but before Mother's Day, on May 13).
She was delayed by "insurance issues" by at most 3 months.
She waited more than a year for a liver because she wasn't a good candidate for a liver transplant.
1. It's explicitly stated, including by the doctor involved, that this is a "groundbreaking" (read: experimental) procedure, having been performed exactly twice in the US this century.
2. The doctor even says "he can somewhat understand the insurance company’s initial reluctance at coverage".
3. The insurance company denied it because "unproven health services is not a covered benefit" - this is expected, the insurance company can't just take a single doctor's word that "it'll totally work, I'm super good at this surgery".
4. The insurance company ended up approving her claim.
And then, from a different article - https://www.kgw.com/article/news/health/portland-mom-who-sur...
5. UNOS actually downgraded her score on their list (highlighting that, unfortunately, this was not a 'promising treatment').
6. She died during the liver transplant operation.