Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look, I'm not a doctor either (just a woman who's been pregnant three times) and I know what her doctors said: that the UTI was not responsible for the premature delivery. That sounds reasonable to me, because a UTI that is treated is usually not serious. But then, what the heck caused the hemorrhaging? I would be interested in some clear explanation of how a UTI can cause vaginal bleeding.
No, it could be the cervix. Which is also bad, if you're pregnant.
What I am saying is, if I were the insurance company reviewing that claim, I would also question that "vaginal bleeding caused by minor UTI" part. I would be wondering what the heck caused that bleeding--maybe something that did contribute to her needing bedrest and all the rest, like a cervical problem? Maybe there WAS no connection, but maybe there was--regardless of what the doctor said.
Excellent point. Was the bleeding bladder associated or vaginal. I have peers who work as claims reviewers for a local insurance company based on our knowledge of physiology and disease. If I were working in that capacity I would also question the nature of the bleeding and if it was indeed vaginal that would alert me to a possible pre-existing condition. UTI associated bleeding and vaginal bleeding can often be confused by the patient.
There is always the chance that the company denied the claim procedurally based on the available medical history and that additional input regarding the nature of the bleeding may reverse or confirm the decision. Insurance claims do get denied and later reversed...not often but they do.
And doctors misdiagnose...more often than insurers reverse decisions. Disease diagnosis is not a black and white science. And even though doctors should rule out all other causes even in the presence of a likely cause (because there could be more than one cause), they often do not. Primarily because those additional tests/exams cost money/time and doctors are pressured to minimize both. Although in this case it should've been easy to detect a concurrent vaginal issue in the presence of a UTI. However, a doctor rushed to see many patients and pressured to reduce costs may have slipped. And a doctor examining the patient well after the bleed may not be able to detect a vaginal issue.
How is the layman to know there is a risk if doctors agree travel will not pose a risk? I believe very strongly in accepting personal responsibility but in this case it would seem, on the face of all available information, they were not rolling the dice, as every site I have accessed rates plane travel at 24 weeks no more risky than car travel if there are no medical complications pre-existent. I "feel" although cannot state, these folks were not attempting to crap-shoot the system.
All Canadians are well aware, or should be given the constant flow of information, that medical costs are higher in the U.S. than virtually anywhere else in the world and I would be very surprised if they would game the system by disguising what they knew to be a pre-existing risk.
Maybe. But they prolly also knew that US hospitals do not turn emergent patients away if they cannot pay or do not have enough insurance. That may have eased any concerns they had when making their decision. And prolly many folks believe that cash debt incurred in a foreign country has no impact if one never travels there again.
That is how they keep health care costs down in Canada.
We're currently studying your "disparity of care" system of delivery so we can cut costs even further. Everyone knows if you can shorten a lifespan you can cut costs of healthcare exponentially.
Average male lifespan of 66.1 years, WOW, think of the money we could save on depends alone!
Another well known system of hospital sustenance is making profits from medical errors, thereby guaranteeing another source of income:
This one has clearly fallen through the cracks up here and we should take better notice of systems deliberately enacted below the 49th to sustain the "care-for-profit" motive.
Given our demonstrated ability to sustain a tax based high quality universal healthcare system with just one tenth of your population, were we to implement this ingenious system of cost recovery in our hospitals, we'd probably come out net-recipients of tax returns. Why didn't we think of this 50 years ago?
We could learn so much from you folks if we'd just pay better attention when you discover yet another way to profit from the misfortune of the individual.
If we could just get to this wonderful state of affairs I can easily see our GDP rising like a rocket:
(Coincidentally the above entity commonly referred to on here as a Canadian company being the very same American owned insurance company that sold coverage to, but then refused payment to the individual in question on this thread. Imagine that; I wonder where they learned that tactic?)
"The CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, a non-profit insurance company, made $16 million in 2012."
"Remember, Blue Cross/Blue Shield receives billions and billions of dollars of money from health insurance enrollees. It pays most of that out to healthcare providers. But it also rewards many of its employees, especially its executives, with very lucrative salaries, salaries that influence healthcare costs, even though they are not counted as healthcare profits."
Absolutely brilliant concept call your Shylock Insurance company a "non-profit" enterprise then disguise and disperse the profits derived from it as bonus's, huger salaries and stipends. WOW!!
Now that's something that Canada could really benefit from; the lowering of our 'compassion versus greed' threshold. We just don't seem to get it at all.
How is the layman to know there is a risk if doctors agree travel will not pose a risk? I believe very strongly in accepting personal responsibility but in this case it would seem, on the face of all available information, they were not rolling the dice, as every site I have accessed rates plane travel at 24 weeks no more risky than car travel if there are no medical complications pre-existent. I "feel" although cannot state, these folks were not attempting to crap-shoot the system.
All Canadians are well aware, or should be given the constant flow of information, that medical costs are higher in the U.S. than virtually anywhere else in the world and I would be very surprised if they would game the system by disguising what they knew to be a pre-existing risk.
And yes. How is a layman to know?
We have historically put doctors on a huge pedestal. We forget our brains at the door when we walk into the exam room and have trouble remembering to ask questions or listen to what the doctor is telling us. And we think the doctor is gonna take care of everything so it's OK if we don't take a more active role. This occurs so often it isn't funny.
It's hard being a doctor. The amount of information they have to retain and process is phenomenal. So guess what? They slip.
I am not saying this is what happened in this case but that we need to take a very active role in our own care. If that was me I would've also gotten advice from many other sources and may have chosen to act on the side of extreme caution. You gotta look at all the possible outcomes, not just the probable outcomes, and make your decision accordingly. Especially when there is another life besides your own involved.
It's easy to say this now. After the fact. And it's not always easy to take the informed cautious route...lots of criticism from others for being a worry-wart. But I've personally learned that using caution has prevented lots of problems/issues that others have experienced. So I've been reinforced for my cautious decisions. It wasn't always that way for me.
With proper care, urinary tract infections rarely cause serious health
problems. Most infections are limited to the bladder and urethra, but sometimes
they can lead to a kidney infection. If they do, UTIs may lead to preterm labor
and low birth weight.
Right. A kidney infection is serious. When I had a UTI when pregnant, I suggested to my doctor that it was a kidney infection, because I felt so sick that I was actually hoping she would admit me to the hospital. But because I did not have a high fever, it was ruled out.
Point being, if you have a kidney infection you are very, very sick. That would not have been described as a "minor bladder infection" in the patient's medical record unless it was completely misdiagnosed.
We're currently studying your "disparity of care" system of delivery so we can cut costs even further. Everyone knows if you can shorten a lifespan you can cut costs of healthcare exponentially.
Average male lifespan of 66.1 years, WOW, think of the money we could save on depends alone!
From your link..
Quote:
The average life expectancy for men in the U.S. in 2009 was 76.2 years and for women 81.3 years, the institute found.
Where did you get the 66.1 years number from? Because it wasn't from your link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Another well known system of hospital sustenance is making profits from medical errors, thereby guaranteeing another source of income:
This one has clearly fallen through the cracks up here and we should take better notice of systems deliberately enacted below the 49th to sustain the "care-for-profit" motive.
The study is based on a detailed analysis of the records of 34,256 people who had surgery in 2010 at one of 12 hospitals run by Texas Health Resources.
So one hospital's experience is enough to determine that? Hmm. But nonetheless, let's see what the hospitals say about it. Are they trying to have more complications to make more money? Let's see what the hospital in question said...
Quote:
As to whether the hospital would lose money if more patients needed less care and went home sooner after surgery, Dr. Lester said, “to us that doesn’t have an impact.â€
“Reducing complications and increasing safety is why we’re there,†he said. “If in doing that, some payments don’t come our way, it’s not of consequence. What’s of consequence is that people who come to us are in a safer environment.â€
Oh it appears they are not. So much for that argument, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Given our demonstrated ability to sustain a tax based high quality universal healthcare system with just one tenth of your population, were we to implement this ingenious system of cost recovery in our hospitals, we'd probably come out net-recipients of tax returns. Why didn't we think of this 50 years ago?
We could learn so much from you folks if we'd just pay better attention when you discover yet another way to profit from the misfortune of the individual.
If we could just get to this wonderful state of affairs I can easily see our GDP rising like a rocket:
"The CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, a non-profit insurance company, made $16 million in 2012."
(Coincidentally the above entity commonly referred to on here as a Canadian company being the very same American owned insurance company that sold coverage to, but then refused payment to the individual in question on this thread. Imagine that; I wonder where they learned that tactic?)
"Remember, Blue Cross/Blue Shield receives billions and billions of dollars of money from health insurance enrollees. It pays most of that out to healthcare providers. But it also rewards many of its employees, especially its executives, with very lucrative salaries, salaries that influence healthcare costs, even though they are not counted as healthcare profits."
Absolutely brilliant concept call your Shylock Insurance company a "non-profit" enterprise then disguise and disperse the profits derived from it as bonus's, huger salaries and stipends. WOW!!
Now that's something that Canada could really benefit from; the lowering of our 'compassion versus greed' threshold. We just don't seem to get it at all.
You left out a bit of a few quotes. Let's see what it said.
Quote:
The CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, a non-profit insurance company, made $16 million in 2012. Shah and Andrews are upset about the profit motive in medicine, but should be more focused on greed. Profits are not to blame for healthcare costs in the United States. We could run an entirely non-profit system and still witness high healthcare costs.
Oh and why did you leave out this quote? Didn't fit your narrative?
Quote:
Imagine confiscating all the profits of all the famously greedy health insurance companies. That would pay for 4 days of healthcare for all Americans. Now add in the profits of the 10 biggest ‘rapacious’ drug companies. Another 13 days.
But really, you cited an opinion piece. Good for you. Still doesn't prove your point. The simple fact is that a Canadian insurance policy denied this woman care based on a pre-existing condition. Just can't escape that, can you?
I'm happy you like your country's health insurance. Good for you. I don't live there and I don't pay taxes there so I do not have the hubris to say what you and your country should do to deliver healthcare to its citizens. However, you seem to have no such problem trying to bash our healthcare system, even if you use rather selective citations to do so.
[quote=BruSan;37360400]We're currently studying your "disparity of care" system of delivery so we can cut costs even further. Everyone knows if you can shorten a lifespan you can cut costs of healthcare exponentially.
Average male lifespan of 66.1 years, WOW, think of the money we could save on depends alone!
quote]
For anyone who bothers to read the article you linked, it's completely misleading to say life expectancies in the US compare to those in the poorest countries especially Africa.
The stupid study tried to link the poorest sections of certain USA counties (county) with the overal lifespan of an entire African country. If they want to compare apples to apples, they need to link the life span of the poorest US county/city vs the poorest African city. But they don't.
Just look at one quote from the article,
"But life expectancies varied dramatically. In Marin County, Calif., men could expect to live to a ripe 81.6 years. In two Mississippi counties, male life expectancy was just 66.1 years, about the same as in Pakistan."
Maybe. But they prolly also knew that US hospitals do not turn emergent patients away if they cannot pay or do not have enough insurance. That may have eased any concerns they had when making their decision. And prolly many folks believe that cash debt incurred in a foreign country has no impact if one never travels there again.
They purchased the appropriate insurance. Blue Cross being an American business "prolly" would have sold them the correct coverage, yes?
They were assured by their doctor's it would be safe to travel. they were well within the window of safety listed by every known relevant agency from the World Health Org. to all Obstetrics based recommendations.
They deserve the assumption of innocence and of normal people not desiring to risk a medical emergency in a foreign country first and foremost, before jumping to attributing secondary thinking to them as "prolly" hedging their bets because American hospitals do not turn people away.
In their lifetime as Canadians, that is the norm of not being denied quality medical treatment due to the check-book balance.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the points of them being either incautious or of an opportunist mindset. All available information would refute this.
They purchased the appropriate insurance. Blue Cross being an American business "prolly" would have sold them the correct coverage, yes?
They were assured by their doctor's it would be safe to travel. they were well within the window of safety listed by every known relevant agency from the World Health Org. to all Obstetrics based recommendations.
They deserve the assumption of innocence and of normal people not desiring to risk a medical emergency in a foreign country first and foremost, before jumping to attributing secondary thinking to them as "prolly" hedging their bets because American hospitals do not turn people away.
In their lifetime as Canadians, that is the norm of not being denied quality medical treatment due to the check-book balance.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the points of them being either incautious or of an opportunist mindset. All available information would refute this.
I have my doubts about quality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
