Another example of contraception access SNAFUs

__ Posts: 6,651
edited January 2010 in A Moving Train
Today we found out that insurance companies are denying payment for women's tubal ligations if they can find any little thing wrong with the consent form. One form wasn't dated by one of the people who signed it. Another form was exactly the same form as the one approved for use, but it still said "sample consent form" at the top.

This means that either the hospital (which is already really under-funded) will have to eat the cost of these procedures, or the patients (who have insurance) will have to pay the bills they never should have received.

For future patients, it means that we may have to turn them away from their tubals - including post-partum tubals - if there's any little problem with their form. (The form must be signed 30 days in advance.)
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,497
    Is it too hard to fill out the form?

    You can't get a driver's license without filling out the form properly.

    Now, if you are telling me that the people do not have the ability to correct the error and get the procedure paid for as it should have been, then that's a problem.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    Wow, a perfect opportunity to roll my eyes and make a snide comment about it probably being a mans fault. nah, I'll take the high road. ;)
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    Is it too hard to fill out the form?

    You can't get a driver's license without filling out the form properly.

    Now, if you are telling me that the people do not have the ability to correct the error and get the procedure paid for as it should have been, then that's a problem.

    Of course it's not hard to fill out a form correctly - it's just easy to make some minor "error". It's the docs, not the patients, who choose which form to use, fill it out, and are responsible for making sure the patients signs appropriately. But, for one thing, the docs didn't think there was anything wrong with using a form that said "sample form" at the top as long as the content was the same. Also, at least 3 different people must sign (at 2 different points in time) and 2 of them are busy doctors. It's easy to leave off a date next to your signature (especially when the "sample" form doesn't have a space for the date next to every signature line).

    Yes, I am telling you that the people do not have the ability to correct the error and get the procedure paid for as it should have been. The procedure is only paid for when there is a (valid) consent signed 30 days in advance, so there's no room to sign a valid consent after the procedure has happened. Also, most of these are post-partum tubal ligations, meaning they are done right after delivery or at the time of c-section (which makes is an easier and more convenient procedure for everyone). So it's not like these events (childbirth) can just be delayed.
  • Dirtie_FrankDirtie_Frank Posts: 1,348
    How is this a contraception SNAFU as you put it. They still can abstain or use a condom. This is more of a clerical error.
    96 Randall's Island II
    98 CAA
    00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
    05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
    06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
    08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
    09 Phillie III
    10 MSG II
    13 Wrigley Field
    16 Phillie II
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    How is this a contraception SNAFU as you put it. They still can abstain or use a condom. This is more of a clerical error.

    It's an example of something that gets in the way of a person trying to obtain contraception.
  • Dirtie_FrankDirtie_Frank Posts: 1,348
    scb wrote:
    How is this a contraception SNAFU as you put it. They still can abstain or use a condom. This is more of a clerical error.

    It's an example of something that gets in the way of a person trying to obtain contraception.

    Isn't it an elective surgery?
    96 Randall's Island II
    98 CAA
    00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
    05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
    06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
    08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
    09 Phillie III
    10 MSG II
    13 Wrigley Field
    16 Phillie II
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    scb wrote:
    How is this a contraception SNAFU as you put it. They still can abstain or use a condom. This is more of a clerical error.

    It's an example of something that gets in the way of a person trying to obtain contraception.

    Isn't it an elective surgery?

    Of course. All contraception is elective. I'm not getting your point. :?
  • I don't think that this is a contraception access snafu, but more like a sketchy insurance company tactic to get out of paying for any procedure. If it was surgery to remove my tonsils, then they would probably try to get out of paying for that too.

    Besides the fact that these insurance forms are pages of legalese that differ from insurance company to insurance company.

    That's where the people lose me who trumpet the idea of opening state boarders from insurance companies to compete. What doctors/hospital in their right minds would decide to accept all these hundreds of plans and all of their different forms, policies and procedures that each company has.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    I don't think that this is a contraception access snafu, but more like a sketchy insurance company tactic to get out of paying for any procedure. If it was surgery to remove my tonsils, then they would probably try to get out of paying for that too.

    I agree. Insurance companies will do anything to get out of paying.
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    I don't think that this is a contraception access snafu, but more like a sketchy insurance company tactic to get out of paying for any procedure. If it was surgery to remove my tonsils, then they would probably try to get out of paying for that too.

    Besides the fact that these insurance forms are pages of legalese that differ from insurance company to insurance company.

    That's where the people lose me who trumpet the idea of opening state boarders from insurance companies to compete. What doctors/hospital in their right minds would decide to accept all these hundreds of plans and all of their different forms, policies and procedures that each company has.

    I totally agree. But I don't think that makes it any less of a problem for the women trying to get sterilized. My point was to note an example of problems people face in their contraceptive efforts (since so many people around here like to say that obtaining reliable, affordable contraception is always so easy).
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    Hahahahaha!!! Check out the part at about 0:56:

    Protect Insurance Comapanies PSA
  • scb wrote:
    Hahahahaha!!! Check out the part at about 0:56:

    Protect Insurance Comapanies PSA


    I love that video :)
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    How is this a contraception SNAFU as you put it. They still can abstain or use a condom. This is more of a clerical error.

    FYI... it's sterilization is MUCH more effective than using a condom.

    90 per 1,000 women relying on the male condom get pregnant within the first year of use. (Source: the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists Practice Bulletin on the Benefits & Risks of Sterilization)

    5.5 per 1,000 women relying on (all methods of) female sterilization get pregnant within the first year. (Source: The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: Findings from the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Volume 174, Issue 4 (April 1996))
Sign In or Register to comment.