For mums in America...just curious!

[Mummy_to_be87]

What happens if you are pregnant and about to give birth but you dont have enough money to pay for the hospital to deliver your baby?

Always wondered

 

[FirstTryGal]

I think that legally the hospital is required to help someone in obvious medical distress or emergency, regardless of insurance, pay status and whetever. Ive seen signs all over that state that they have to ensure that you are stable, and then can decide what happens from there.

So in the case of having a baby, they have to help you deliver legally! And then all the rest gets sorted out.

 

[chicka.chicka]

I've never heard of a hospital turning away anyone in immediate need of care because of lack of immediate payment. They will treat you and sort out the financial stuff later. They will always present financial aid options such as Medicaid and help you apply to see if you qualify, and will make payment arrangements for you if you don't. Many will even give a discount for self-pay patients to try to help you out, especially if you can arrange to make the payment within a certain amount of time (sometimes up to 30 days).

It's really not as bad as all the socialized health care supporters like to make it sound.

 

[MomPepperdine]

They will have to take you in just like any normal hospital bill if you can't work up payments they will send you to collections also note that if you get state medical withen 3 mo of it they will pay for it

 

[Pandora0814]

They cannot turn you away. It is hospital policy. They have to treat you. As far as your bill, they will bill you but if you have issues paying, they will send you a form to fill out that deals with "Financial Difficulty".

It will ask question such as how much you make a month, 6 months, 9 month & 1 year. After you send all that in, they will work with you or even wipe away the bill depending on how much you make.

My hospital has done that with my husbands ER bill.

Have no worries, hospitals will work with you.

 

[rowleypolie]

As noted above they will help you deliver baby and I just learned you can apply for the state medical program (medicaid) if you are financially qualified to cover any medical 3 months before you applied. So if you weren't on the program you can apply after and the state will pick it up

 

[CatherineK]

Yes, noone is turned away. They treat you as any other patient, and often will have someone visit you in the hospital to help you apply for any programs you may qualify for. Afterwards if you don't qualify for assistance, you simply negotiate a payment plan (interest free) and it can be as little as 20/month or something.

 

[SpotlessMind]

It's like the ER. You get treated, then billed out the a** for it.

 

[xforuiholdonx]

You pay an outrageous amount of money. My midwives charge $4500 for prenatal care, and delivery. The hospital with then charge my insurance as well, probably about $12000. Then if you dont qual for medicaid, you have the babys bill on top of it as well.

 

[Piper84]

Is it true your credit rating can be downgraded if you don't pay within a certain time? And if they realise you can't pay straight away, are they more likely to send you home faster than usual?

 

[MImom2be]

Is it true your credit rating can be downgraded if you don't pay within a certain time? And if they realize you can't pay straight away, are they more likely to send you home faster than usual?

Prior to pregnancy (and prior to getting state health insurance) I racked up over $30,000 in hospital bills, was sent to collections and now, 4 years later, my credit has not shown any of this, nor has my score been affected.

As for sending you home faster than usual, in the US here, you have to SIGN a waver for ER services, acknowledging that you received information/scripts/etc... prior to being sent home. There was one case where they couldn't find what was wrong with me and I refused to sign the waver to be sent home...they kept me and actually found out what was wrong with me...go figure. Amazing what they'd do (test wise) to get me the hell out of there.

 

[sevenofnine]

Is it true your credit rating can be downgraded if you don't pay within a certain time? And if they realize you can't pay straight away, are they more likely to send you home faster than usual?

Prior to pregnancy (and prior to getting state health insurance) I racked up over $30,000 in hospital bills, was sent to collections and now, 4 years later, my credit has not shown any of this, nor has my score been affected.

As for sending you home faster than usual, in the US here, you have to SIGN a waver for ER services, acknowledging that you received information/scripts/etc... prior to being sent home. There was one case where they couldn't find what was wrong with me and I refused to sign the waver to be sent home...they kept me and actually found out what was wrong with me...go figure. Amazing what they'd do (test wise) to get me the hell out of there.

It's probably a case by case basis, because some family of mine without insurance racked up about 40K in hospital bills, are paying about $50 or more a month (whatever they can, really), and their credit has been ruined by it.

Because of the new health care laws, our insurance is 2X more expensive starting in 2014. I honestly am unsure how we'll afford it- but we also can't afford the fines for not having insurance starting next year. They really have you screwed either way.

 

[CatherineK]

Hospital bills, as long as you set up a payment plan an keep to it, are not supposed to damage your credit. Even if you pay a tiny amount each month. As soon as you ignore bills or miss payments, then they can effect your credit. Not sure about everywhere, but here in WV, they have to allow you to stay in hospital after baby at least 48 for vaginal birth. Insurance or not. So no, they do not kick you out. My friend has no insurance and her baby has been well cared for in the NICU for a month already. Most of here bills will be written off by the hospital.

 

[wristwatch24]

If you make the payments your credit score will be unaffected. Even if you send less than the minimum payment they cannot send you to collections. As long as you pay SOMETHING every month it won't affect your credit score.

 

[chicka.chicka]

You know what strikes me as funny about this discussion? If you had a pipe burst in your house and had to call a plumber, would you expect to not have to pay the bill, or to not have your credit affected if you didn't? Sure, it was an emergency situation, but the plumber did give his time and services and ought to be compensated for it. The only difference I see is that the plumber is less likely to work with you given your financial situation and set you up on payment plans or help you apply for state aid.

 

[Piper84]

You know what strikes me as funny about this discussion? If you had a pipe burst in your house and had to call a plumber, would you expect to not have to pay the bill, or to not have your credit affected if you didn't? Sure, it was an emergency situation, but the plumber did give his time and services and ought to be compensated for it. The only difference I see is that the plumber is less likely to work with you given your financial situation and set you up on payment plans or help you apply for state aid.

I can't imagine a situation where a burst pipe would cost tens of thousands of dollars to repair, so the difference for me is the price you're expected to pay.

 

[DLA]

It's law that you can't be denied treatment in a hospital due to lack of insurance or even money. But yes you would get billed and your credit would be ruined if you didn't pay it. Most hospitals will work out a payment plan with you though.

 

[chicka.chicka]

You know what strikes me as funny about this discussion? If you had a pipe burst in your house and had to call a plumber, would you expect to not have to pay the bill, or to not have your credit affected if you didn't? Sure, it was an emergency situation, but the plumber did give his time and services and ought to be compensated for it. The only difference I see is that the plumber is less likely to work with you given your financial situation and set you up on payment plans or help you apply for state aid.

I can't imagine a situation where a burst pipe would cost tens of thousands of dollars to repair, so the difference is the price you're expected to pay.

As someone who worked in the health care industry for 15 years, I can tell you the reason health care services are so expensive is not because providers are greedy and evil profit-mongers. It's because of state programs like Medicaid and Medicare who compensate doctors at a rate far less than what it actually costs to provide services. In order to stay open, the hospitals and clinics are then forced to pass the cost difference on to private insurance carriers (who also negotiate lower rates) and, more significantly, to the self-pay patients. This is what keeps the costs high. And with the new Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., Obamacare) it's already getting worse and will continue to do so.

Once upon a time, when health care was still governed by the private sector, like plumbing is, people could afford it. The more the government gets involved, the more expensive and less efficient it becomes. Like everything else the government gets involved in.

 

[Piper84]

You know what strikes me as funny about this discussion? If you had a pipe burst in your house and had to call a plumber, would you expect to not have to pay the bill, or to not have your credit affected if you didn't? Sure, it was an emergency situation, but the plumber did give his time and services and ought to be compensated for it. The only difference I see is that the plumber is less likely to work with you given your financial situation and set you up on payment plans or help you apply for state aid.

I can't imagine a situation where a burst pipe would cost tens of thousands of dollars to repair, so the difference is the price you're expected to pay.

As someone who worked in the health care industry for 15 years, I can tell you the reason health care services are so expensive is not because providers are greedy and evil profit-mongers. It's because of state programs like Medicaid and Medicare who compensate doctors at a rate far less than what it actually costs to provide services. In order to stay open, the hospitals and clinics are then forced to pass the cost difference on to private insurance carriers (who also negotiate lower rates) and, more significantly, to the self-pay patients. This is what keeps the costs high. And with the new Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., Obamacare) it's already getting worse and will continue to do so.

Once upon a time, when health care was still governed by the private sector, like plumbing is, people could afford it. The more the government gets involved, the more expensive and less efficient it becomes. Like everything else the government gets involved in.

I'm wondering why this is. I've experienced complete state health provision (in the UK) and private health provision (in Germany). Both have their benefits and both are world class. People aren't left bankrupt by individual treatments.

In Germany, the €10 fee per quarter you need to pay for going to the doctor's has even been scrapped because healthcare providers have made so much profit that it's no longer reasonable to charge it. This is simply covered by everyone paying a certain percentage of their salary towards healthcare.

 

[chicka.chicka]

Yes, but what kind of tax rates did/do you pay in those countries? See, here in the U.S., one of the founding ideas is that you should get to keep that which you earn. The government would tax a nominal amount in order to help pay for things like the military and certain kinds of infrastructure. You get to keep the rest and are responsible for taking care of your needs such as food, shelter, clothing, education, medical, etc. This allows you, the citizen, the maximum amount of freedom of choice to meet these needs in the way YOU see fit. Also, it allows private citizens to create businesses offering goods and services so that they can earn an income to then meet their needs in the way they see fit. The government would stay as hands off as possible, only getting involved when there was criminal activity. So while you are responsible to meet your own needs, you also have the maximum amount of freedom and financial means by which to do so.

In the systems set up in the UK and other European countries, the government has taken on the responsibility of making sure that these kinds of needs are met and, in order to do so, must tax income at a significantly higher rate. Unfortunately, this also leads to a decrease in the freedom you have to pursue the educational, medical, and other such services that you choose both because of your decreased financial means and also because government regulations may restrict what, when, why, or where you can have access to.

So really it's a matter of what your priorities are. Personally, I favor a system that allows maximum freedom and personal choice, despite the fact that it also comes with a certain amount of risk and personal responsibility. These are the circumstances under which the U.S. was able to become such a prosperous and powerful nation in such a short amount of time. The more we move away from those principles (which really began in earnest in the early 1900s), the less prosperity we see. So then the government tries to compensate by increasing their involvement in private lives and industry, which is taking us even farther down the road away from prosperity and freedom.

I get why people are so attracted to the systems in Europe and even Canada. On the surface it seems great. All I have to do is give up more of my income and I get the "guarantee" of all these free services. The problem is that nothing is really free, and frankly, the quality of care in these countries is not as high as it has historically been in the U.S. (which, again, was more true when the private sector was more in charge than the public sector).