> An insurance company cannot reject a prescription. They can only reject paying for it.
That's a distinction without meaning. Say an insurer won't pay for cancer treatments. Although they're not technically telling you that you can't have the treatment, for all practical purposes they absolutely are (unless you're so rich you can eat the cost).
The article talks about Semaglutide, which is $750/month from a traditional pharmacy after UnitedHealthcare rejects paying for it, or $300/month from Hims. If you believe the medicine's substantially the same between those sources, why wouldn't you take the $5400/year out of pocket discount?
The egregiously heinous thing, in my view, is how a half dozen states still have some kind of health insurance mandate in their laws, and up until 2019 the ACA required all Americans carry it.
That's a distinction without meaning. Say an insurer won't pay for cancer treatments. Although they're not technically telling you that you can't have the treatment, for all practical purposes they absolutely are (unless you're so rich you can eat the cost).
The article talks about Semaglutide, which is $750/month from a traditional pharmacy after UnitedHealthcare rejects paying for it, or $300/month from Hims. If you believe the medicine's substantially the same between those sources, why wouldn't you take the $5400/year out of pocket discount?