Saskatchewan couple face $1M medical bill for US birth

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Well its a tough one to call, but I gather the one good thing is the child will have dual citizenship so call it a long term investment by the parents. The ability to work in multiple geographies is definitely a leg up.

Big leg up having to file US income taxes your whole life for marginal benefits!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

hey hey, don't take my posts as accepting or an endorsement of that system. BTW, I think it is proper ####ed.

But at the end of the day the hospitals will set prices that the public and/or the insurers will pay.

My brother in law in Denver pays out approx $5000 a year in deductibles, and he has a great HMO.

You know the US will never allow:

Freedoms, theya re all about the freedoms. You know like the freedom to die because you can't afford to go to the hospital.

I think in this case they set the price too high and they're likely going to get left holding the bag.

Sometimes if you set the price too high you end up with nothing.

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Well its a tough one to call, but I gather the one good thing is the child will have dual citizenship so call it a long term investment by the parents. The ability to work in multiple geographies is definitely a leg up.

Haha! Have you been paying attention to the situation in the US?

I wouldnt take US citizenship for free let alone pay for it. Many of my US clients are currently renouncing their citizenship.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

.....the one good thing is the child will have dual citizenship

Yeah, not so much.

[j_j]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I believe that is incorrect. I believe that physicians are required to be unbaised and impartial.

Ok, let's flip this around, is the doctor the insurance company is using to review the claim able to give an "unbiased and impartial" assessments of the medical file?

Anyway, my point was that the opinion of their OB may have given them some confidence as to whether they would be at risk to travel, but in no way should be relevant or binding in the actual circumstances of the payment of the claim.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

Yes, if I remember correctly, it was more expensive for a pineapple in Hawaii than it was at your Calgary Safeway.

Everything else makes sense due to geographical location but the pineapple thing really confused me.

Actually this is a bit untrue, at least in my experience. I find places like Costco in Hawaii to be way cheaper than Calgary for just about everything including Pineapples. In fact I am willing to bet you can get a Hawaiian pineapple for less than $3 in Hawaii and Calgary would be about the same or more. Plus our comes from Costa Rica unripe, not Hawaii and are inferior in every way (I am a bit of a weirdo pineapple snob).

I also bought a suit in Honolulu at the Boss store because our store here was too good for sales. Saved $700 right there.

Liquor is massively cheaper including wine and beer as well. Fish is cheaper, Ahi Tuna/Opakapaka/Monk fish being dirt cheap compared to Calgary.

Sure there are some things that are more expensive but I wouldn't say Calgary is cheaper for food by any means.

Now tax is a different story. They tax the heck out of everything, so that maybe why things appear to be more expensive there after tax.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

Yes, if I remember correctly, it was more expensive for a pineapple in Hawaii than it was at your Calgary Safeway.

Everything else makes sense due to geographical location but the pineapple thing really confused me.

I also heard it's cheaper to buy a Big Rock beer in the States than it is in Calgary, so,,,,,,,

[sharkov]

That's what I call a million dollar baby

[Locke]

Originally Posted by sharkov

That's what I call a million dollar baby

[Flash Walken]

Locke, you were asking about 'cost' for care...

Women giving birth in the United States without experiencing any medical complications can be charged anywhere between $3,296 and $37,227, according to a new study conducted by researchers at the University of California at San Francisco. And the dramatically different pricing at different hospitals doesn’t lend itself to any kind of logic.

Researchers studied about 100,000 births in California, and found that women having babies just a few miles apart could be charged prices that varied by more than $15,000. Institutional and market factors — like the hospital’s non-profit or for-profit status, whether the hospital incurs a lot of uncompensated costs by serving a large population of low-income patients, and the mother’s age and length of stay — only explained about a third of the price fluctuations, according to researchers.

“The majority of the discrepancies couldn’t be explained and there was no consistent pattern,” Dr. Y. Hsia, an associate professor of emergency medicine and the lead author of the study, told ABC News.

That may seem like it would spur expectant parents to shop around a little bit and select a cheaper hospital, but Hsia noted that comparison shopping is virtually impossible. Doctors and other hospital staff typically have no idea what health services, including the care related to childbirth, will end up costing. Patients can’t know for sure what they’ll be expected to pay until they receive their bill.

Other data in this area has drawn similar conclusions. As a whole, Americans medical bills are random, and a lack of price transparency in the industry prevents people from realizing when they’re patronizing one of the most expensive hospitals in the country. A recent analysis in the New York Times found that giving birth in America costs more than anywhere else in the world, although that doesn’t translate to better quality of care. In fact, U.S. hospital prices are simply artificially high, sometimes charging patients up to ten times more than the actual price of the services they’re receiving.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...h-cost-varies/

This reflects the other article I posted where a swab of disinfectant for the umbilical cord was 20 dollars whereas the entire bottle has a retail price of $2.49.

[Northendzone]

i love how folks always hammer away at the insurance company and thier pesky contractual wording.......perhaps the insurance company should do away with these boring wordy documents and just pay everything......

anywyas, just because her doctor said she was good to travel, does not mean the insurer agreed......

anywyas, i am sure this is going to get worked out and the couple will be fine.....

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by j_j

Ok, let's flip this around, is the doctor the insurance company is using to review the claim able to give an "unbiased and impartial" assessments of the medical file?

Anyway, my point was that the opinion of their OB may have given them some confidence as to whether they would be at risk to travel, but in no way should be relevant or binding in the actual circumstances of the payment of the claim.

Actually, yes. The doctor will provide an "unbiased and impartial" assessment of the medical file.


Are you suggesting that the CPSS member's aren't unbaised in the carrying out of their duty(s)?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

I think in this case they set the price too high and they're likely going to get left holding the bag.

Sometimes if you set the price too high you end up with nothing.

.

True, but I can't comment on the number of hospitals if any that are going under due to over pricing in the US.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

True, but I can't comment on the number of hospitals if any that are going under due to over pricing in the US.

Publicly Subsidized, Privately Profitable.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Publicly Subsidized, Privately Profitable

broken system

we agree

The US seems to have a lot of broken systems

[j_j]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Actually, yes. The doctor will provide an "unbiased and impartial" assessment of the medical file.


Are you suggesting that the CPSS member's aren't unbaised in the carrying out of their duty(s)?

I'm saying that most people wouldn't think that an insurance company doctor is fair and impartial.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by j_j

I'm saying that most people wouldn't think that an insurance company doctor is fair and impartial.

The insurer wouldn't have a doctor on staff. Even if they did have an on staff doctor, that individual would be expected to conduct themselves to the expectations of licensing body where the practice, in this case it appears to be the CPSS.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Publicly Subsidized, Privately Profitable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/bu...general&src=me&

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/bu...general&src=me&

out of thanks, just reading page 2 of the article now, thanks for the link.

[j_j]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The insurer wouldn't have a doctor on staff. Even if they did have an on staff doctor, that individual would be expected to conduct themselves to the expectations of licensing body where the practice, in this case it appears to be the CPSS.

It's a long way from bias to misconduct. I'm certainly not saying doctors are going to make stuff up. But they also aren't Gods, everyone is influenced by their biases and who is paying you for the assessment is a pretty big one.

[FlameOn]

This happened to my American coworker. His first son was born pre-term and his wife had to goto the hospital early to get a caesarian. The procedure, along with his at the time limited insurance coverage, cost him almost 100k out of pocket. Ten years later he is still paying for his first born. Luckily he took a long look at this and has long since moved to Canada for our better health policies for his second child; who was born without any hitches.