Saskatchewan couple face $1M medical bill for US birth

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It says her water broke on December 10th. Policy said to be expired on November 9th.

Where does it say that? The first article says it broke in October, the second says she was hospitalized for six weeks beginning in November before giving birth by c-section in December. If the claim was started in November before the policy expired, I don't get why things wouldn't be covered.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Where does it say that? The first article says it broke in October, the second says she was hospitalized for six weeks beginning in November before giving birth by c-section in December. If the claim was started in November before the policy expired, I don't get why things wouldn't be covered.

Either way it sounds like according to Blue Cross, the policy expired before the bulk of the charges were incurred as about 80% of the charges were for the baby.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Locke

If this happened to 'Random American #68' would the cost be the same? If the answer is yes that is one very, very broken system.

The thing is that actual medical care is really expensive everywhere. Keep a child in a neonatal unit for 2 months in Canada, and I doubt those costs would be that different. Doctors, nurses, medical equipment, administration, specialized medicine aren't magically a fraction of the price here.

The big difference is mostly just who pays for it.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Locke

Forget coverage, forget about the fact that they're Canadians.

If this happened to 'Random American #68' would the cost be the same? If the answer is yes that is one very, very broken system.

If Random American was hospitalized for six weeks when her water broke prematurely, and then needed the newborn to stay in neonatal care for two months, the cost would probably be the same. It's not like this is Typical American Baby Delivery© though.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Either way it sounds like according to Blue Cross, the policy expired before the bulk of the charges were incurred as about 80% of the charges were for the baby.

So how could the couple have mitigated that? And why has Blue Cross paid $0 for the $200K of charges for the mother if the medical emergency started while the policy was in effect?

[mrkajz44]

So is the basis of the argument the pre-existing condition (which the family doctor refutes), or the fact that the travel policy lapsed prior to the baby being born (policy lapsed on Nov 9 and baby born on Dec 10 according to CBC article)?

My thought with travel insurance is if something happens during the trip, when the policy is active, even if more expenses are incurred after the policy lapses (ie end of my planned trip), they are still covered as the condition arose during the window of a valid policy. Is that wrong? That sort of sounds like Blue Crosses agrument.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The thing is that actual medical care is really expensive everywhere. Keep a child in a neonatal unit for 2 months in Canada, and I doubt those costs would be that different. Doctors, nurses, medical equipment, administration, specialized medicine aren't magically a fraction of the price here.

The big difference is mostly just who pays for it.

Another big difference, is medical care there is a business. You pay different prices and get different service at different hospitals.

These are, for the most part, "for profit" hospitals.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The thing is that actual medical care is really expensive everywhere. Keep a child in a neonatal unit for 2 months in Canada, and I doubt those costs would be that different. Doctors, nurses, medical equipment, administration, specialized medicine aren't magically a fraction of the price here.

The big difference is mostly just who pays for it.

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

If Random American was hospitalized for six weeks when her water broke prematurely, and then needed the newborn to stay in neonatal care for two months, the cost would probably be the same. It's not like this is Typical American Baby Delivery© though.

No, and I understand all that, but Americans have premature babies too, I just have a very hard time believing that if this happened to any average, run-of-the-mill American under the exact same circumstances that the tab would be a Million bucks. May as well make it a Billion dollars, either way its uncollectable.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

So how could the couple have mitigated that?

They probably couldn't, but that really isn't really the issue. It happened, costs were incurred and someone has to pay. How it could have been mitigated is a moot point now. It's not like Blue Cross will give her (or anyone) a break simply because they couldn't mitigate anything.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Another big difference, is medical care there is a business.

Agreed, but that pretty much falls under "who pays". It's definitely a screwed up system, and I don't know how anyone can ever expect a for-profit business model to work when it comes to health care.

But my point is that people shouldn't be surprised at the giant bill for 2 months of medical care...it wouldn't be that much lower in Canada. You just wouldn't be the one directly on the hook for it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The thing is that actual medical care is really expensive everywhere. Keep a child in a neonatal unit for 2 months in Canada, and I doubt those costs would be that different. Doctors, nurses, medical equipment, administration, specialized medicine aren't magically a fraction of the price here.

The big difference is mostly just who pays for it.

I don't think this is accurate.

The cost of administering healthcare in the united states varies significantly and is arbitrary.

[Finger Cookin]

I hope they talk to a lawyer and work on action against Blue Cross and get at least a settlement before they consider bankruptcy.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Another big difference, is medical care there is a business. You pay different prices and get different service at different hospitals.

These are, for the most part, "for profit" hospitals.

Which is why if I were them, I would question the fact that the doctors there seemed to make it difficult to ship her back to Canada.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Which is why if I were them, I would question the fact that the doctors there seemed to make it difficult to ship her back to Canada.

Jesus my reading skills are #### today.

Was that in the CBC article?

[Ozy_Flame]

I'm sure the bad publicity served up to Blue Cross will have them compromise on something to save face, even if the couple didn't do their diligence.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Either way it sounds like according to Blue Cross, the policy expired before the bulk of the charges were incurred as about 80% of the charges were for the baby.

That doesn't make a lot of sense though. People get insurance for the length of their trip, not for the length of any conceivable illness or injury and policies are priced accordingly. If you are on a 2 day trip to the US and get in a car accident and are in the hospital for a week they don't normally just stop coverage after the 2 days. The coverage would be damned near pointless if that was how it worked.

That said, you never really get the whole picture when one party goes to the media so who knows what's really up in this case.

[DuffMan]

Insurance companies are only your friends until you need them

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Jesus my reading skills are #### today.

Was that in the CBC article?

Ok, so when I read the story yesterday, it had some different information that seems to be removed from the story now. In the version yesterday, it said that they looked at flying her back to Canada at one point, but the specialists wouldn't approve it because she was too ill. I can't find any other sources for that now.

Which could have been the case, since they are profit driven and were maybe hoping insurance would come through, they could have ulterior motives.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I don't think this is accurate.

The cost of administering healthcare in the united states varies significantly and is arbitrary.

My point is not that the way administer health care in the US is justified (because its not), it's that the core medical costs would still be relatively expensive here too if you think about what goes into treating a child for that long. We still have to pay our doctors, our nurses, support staff, buy medical equipment, buy medicine etc. Public health care doesn't mean free health care.

Medical systems are intrinsically expensive...which is why it's really stupid that anyone in the US expects a for-profit system to work or why so many of it's citizens think changing it is a bad thing.

[polak]

What would the situation be if the roles were flipped and these were americans in Canada?