As despicable as medical overcharges are, it is good to know that not all of the media has chosen to ignore the pervasiveness of the problem. More and more journalists are taking notice, and more and more media outlets are printing stories the bring the truth to light. Let's hope these are the early rumblings of a much-larger effort to secure the rights of medical patients nationwide, including pregnant women and their children.
One such article, posted at MSN here (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P74840.asp), reports estimations that Americans are pilfered out of $10 billion annually by the medical industry. Fraudulent charges, overcharges, erroneous charges – they add up to a lot of money. And they come in surprising ways: newborn blood tests for a man undergoing hip replacement; or $129 for a “mucous recovery system” -- Kleenex to the lay man.
These infractions are outrageous and there's little accountability for hospital administrators who facilitate fraud. They devise plans to discourage dispute, encode cryptic medical bills, demand up front payments or payment before discharge and other tactics designed to make you pay their price, carte blanche.
You wouldn't go to a car dealer, hand over a blank check and tell them to give you whatever they think is best, would you? But that's what hospitals expect you to do. You don't get what you pay for – you get far less than you pay for. In fact, it is estimated that the average hospital stay results in overcharges of $1,300!
The MSN article lists ten ways to prevent hospital overcharges. Much of it has to do with demanding itemized billing, filing disputes, speaking with administrators, and generally jumping through hoops. Resources specific to helping pregnant women receive fair medical billing, handle disputes and hold hospitals accountable for overcharges are available at http://www.maternityhealth.org/ and http://www.maternityadvantage.com/.
SBut some people are finally taking notice, but not yet enough. The more mainstream media reports on such atrocities, the more likely decision makers are to hear our cry. The rumble is low now, but it's getting louder. We will be heard, and we will get fair medical coverage, care and billing for pregnant women!
A Butterfly Flaps It's Wings...
A recent study by the University of Alabama in Birmingham proved how delicate timing is in fetal development. The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, linked early Caesarian sections to an increased risk of newborn complications, including respiratory distress, hypoglycemia, infection and extended hospitalization in the neonatal intensive care unit (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P74840.asp).
The amazing thing is that the risk of intensive care hospitalization was found to be 50% greater when C-sections are performed just a few days early.
All of these complications can result in tragic outcomes for families, and all of them drive up medical costs. So, why is it that C-sections are often scheduled earlier than the 40-week full-term period? Is it, as many believe, to perform the procedure before the natural course of labor begins? Or is it because hospitals make more money when complications arise?
Despite my firm stance against egregious hospital overcharges – they do try to take advantage of pregnant women, especially those who are uninsured or have no insurance – I'm loathe to postulate that the medical industry would put the health of our women and children at risk in the interest of making a buck. But the question begs to be asked.
When you consider that many medical professionals will not provide prenatal care to uninsured pregnant women without 100% upfront payment, and that the lack of prenatal care is proven to increase the risk of newborn complications and mortality, one has to wonder what underlying motivations exist. These women are not given treatment because they do not have the money, despite the fact that these doctors have taken an oath to uphold the sanctity of life without other consideration. But without profit, they do not feel obligated to uphold this oath.
Denying health coverage is a reactive approach; if one does not have money in-hand, one does not provide life-giving services. Facilitating conditions that result in complications is a proactive approach; if the pursuit of profit pushes medical scheduling forward, we're all at risk regardless of whether we have insurance coverage or not.
A butterfly flaps its wings in China, a tornado forms in Alabama. A C-section is scheduled a week early, a newborn spends five days in NICU. A woman cannot gain access to prenatal care, her baby dies.
It's chaos. And it must be stopped.
The amazing thing is that the risk of intensive care hospitalization was found to be 50% greater when C-sections are performed just a few days early.
All of these complications can result in tragic outcomes for families, and all of them drive up medical costs. So, why is it that C-sections are often scheduled earlier than the 40-week full-term period? Is it, as many believe, to perform the procedure before the natural course of labor begins? Or is it because hospitals make more money when complications arise?
Despite my firm stance against egregious hospital overcharges – they do try to take advantage of pregnant women, especially those who are uninsured or have no insurance – I'm loathe to postulate that the medical industry would put the health of our women and children at risk in the interest of making a buck. But the question begs to be asked.
When you consider that many medical professionals will not provide prenatal care to uninsured pregnant women without 100% upfront payment, and that the lack of prenatal care is proven to increase the risk of newborn complications and mortality, one has to wonder what underlying motivations exist. These women are not given treatment because they do not have the money, despite the fact that these doctors have taken an oath to uphold the sanctity of life without other consideration. But without profit, they do not feel obligated to uphold this oath.
Denying health coverage is a reactive approach; if one does not have money in-hand, one does not provide life-giving services. Facilitating conditions that result in complications is a proactive approach; if the pursuit of profit pushes medical scheduling forward, we're all at risk regardless of whether we have insurance coverage or not.
A butterfly flaps its wings in China, a tornado forms in Alabama. A C-section is scheduled a week early, a newborn spends five days in NICU. A woman cannot gain access to prenatal care, her baby dies.
It's chaos. And it must be stopped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
