Jury Verdict Against Aetna

* Columnist Ken Reich misrepresented my views in a recent column (“Verdict Against Aetna Is an Omen of Clash Over HMOs,” Jan. 28). I in no way intended to denigrate or minimize Teresa Goodrich’s very real pain at her husband’s untimely death, and I regret choosing words that suggest otherwise. However, I specifically stated my faith in the ultimate fairness of the American justice system, contrary to Reich’s interpretation of my views.

My comments reflect my frustration with the way Aetna was unfairly portrayed and the simple truth that the San Bernardino jury did not hear all the facts. If it had, I believe the outcome of the trial would have been different, which is why we intend to appeal.

Readers should know what the jury did not: Like the practice of medicine itself, our policies have evolved over the past three years. Today, a member such as David Goodrich, who is diagnosed with a serious illness for which a bone marrow transplant is recommended, is immediately referred to our National Medical Excellence Program. Last year, this program approved coverage for more than 2,114 solid organ and bone marrow transplants--more than 99.5% of those requested. In the other 11 cases, review by external experts in consultation with the treating physician led to alternative treatments, which we also covered.

I fully understand the very personal nature of health care and that nothing short of 100% is acceptable. That is a standard to which everyone in our company aspires every day.

RICHARD L. HUBER

Chairman, Aetna

Hartford, Conn.