The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of BCNN1. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s).
Perhaps no other topic tends to be more polarizing or politicized in America than healthcare. Here at Medi-Share, one of the nation’s leading nonprofit Health Care Sharing Ministries, we often find ourselves in the middle of conversations or news articles regarding our unique approach to meeting the healthcare needs of Christians.
One such article was recently published in The New York Times under the headline, “It Looks Like Health Insurance, but It’s Not. ‘Just Trust God,’ Buyers Are Told.” We appreciate the interest in the unique and growing alternative of health care sharing, but we believe the article left readers with misleading conclusions. Though other ministries will want to speak for themselves, I’d at least like to set the record straight regarding Medi-Share.
Significant Facts Omitted or Misrepresented
The article described an unfavorable experience of a handful of members across several ministries and then implied that these experiences are the norm for members of health care sharing ministries. I don’t believe that’s true, and I can affirm that’s definitely not true at Medi-Share. We have a 26-year history of faithfully sharing among our members, an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau, and consistently high member satisfaction scores (which we monitor continuously). That’s real proof that the great majority of our members like the experience and value they and their families receive by participating in Medi-Share. Since 1993, every eligible bill submitted through the Medi-Share program has been paid by our membership. During 2019, more than $50 million in medical bills were shared each month by the faithful members of Medi-Share.
I was particularly concerned that the one example The New York Times article cited about a Medi-Share member’s experience left out a key part of the story. Yes, it’s true that our member had a medical event that was initially determined not eligible for sharing under the program guidelines. But what the article failed to mention was that the member followed our member appeal process and the initial decision was reversed by our community. Ultimately, this member’s bills were taken care of — that too was omitted. We’ve since learned that an example cited about a Samaritan Ministries’ member was also inaccurately reported.
I wish the article had sought and offered examples I hear every day from members. They are compelling and would more accurately depict the experiences most typical of our community. Let me offer two.
Click here to read more.
SOURCE: Christian Post, Scott Reddig