Anno, I can understand the increased costs but, only if the medication itself has raised its retail price or even a changed feature of a new insurance coverage presuming that is what you meant when you said "changed". My main concern is where they can unilaterally opt out of your benefit to two other medications. The insurer is required to pay the benefits under the insurance contract if the insured has paid the premiums and met certain other basic provisions. It might help to consult with the NABBW experts on this. If you don't feel the insurers are right, then they may pretty well not be on the right.

The insurance companies can change their formulary at any time for whatever reason. The drug companies are charging outrageous prices for many of their drugs. They claim it's because of the costs of research and development. Bull! It's so the CEO's can get their bonuses and stock options and all the other perks they get every day. Most of the research on new drugs and treatments isn't done by the drug companies; it's done on University campuses and partially funded with taxpayer dollars. Many countries have caps on the cost of drugs - the US doesn't. Some organizations, such as the VA, are allowed to negotiate drug prices, while others, such as Medicare, aren't allowed to negotiate. We need to change that by bombarding Congress and telling them to change the regs.

Okay, done ranting.

Lola, you bring up an interesting point. I'll have to see what I can find. But I'm afraid that the insurance companies have such a big lobby (they are the ones who wrote the new Medicare Part D legislation!!!) that not much will get changed.

Yes, Yonuh: It would be great to research legal precedents. I think far more could be done by way of the judiciary as they would be independent of lobbyists. Corporate giants are strong only when they are not challenged in court. One case in mind would be the legal proceedings taken against the tobacco companies, fault found and plaintiffs compensated. It may not be the same tort but nonetheless, it is proof that corporate entities are not immune from scrutiny. Remember, David slew Goliath!