A Kaulkin Ginsberg Publication
TransUnion
11/21/2009

Family (De-)values: Caesarian Sections as Pre-existing Conditions

Posted by Michael Klozotsky on June 19, 2008
Michael Klozotsky

Here’s a new one for you.

Health insurers often deny coverage, especially in the individual insurance market, for a range of recognizable pre-existing conditions: Emphysema, Type A Diabetes, HIV/AIDS, etc.  Insurers argue that such maladies are rarely, if ever, curable and would cost underwriters and consumers millions of dollars annually if covered.  And while some of the diseases that frequently appear on exclusion lists are attributable to lifestyle choices, few arise as a result of a common medical procedure.

Enter the C-section.

According to the New York Times, if you are a woman who has had a Caesarean in the past, the likelihood that you will be deemed insurable in the individual market is remote.  If you can get coverage, prepare to pay more for coverage.  A lot more.

C-sections typically cost more than vaginal births.  In some instances the procedure elevates the risk of surgical complications that increases reimbursement costs for insurers.  Women who have had Caesarians in the past are often more likely to require the procedure in the future.  And many insurance companies beleive that, all too often, the practice is elective rather than medically necessary.

But for many women, Caesarians are not simply a result of a cavalier desire for convenience.  And with few (and widely varied) state regulations governing what conditions insurers can designate for coverage, the C-section has become—albeit for only one gender in the U.S. population—a pariah.

Systemic misogyny aside, such policies lead to a proverbial rock and a hard place for women seeking individual coverage.  Pay exorbitant premiums, hope for an uncomplicated natural birth, or consent to sterilization (yes, you read that correctly: compulsory tubal ligation as a trade-off for access to health insurance).

As more and more consumers are funneled into the individual insurance markets while simultaneously expected to carry the mantle of American Virtue (by populating the country), many women will find themselves financially burdened by unsustainable premium hikes or without coverage at all.  Denials from one insurer can lead to subsequent rejections from other companies, the quintessential definition of insult to injury.  In the absence of affordable access to health insurance, those mothers-to-be face significant risk of incurring medical debt that, more likely than not, will turn from a financial obligation into bad debt, defaults, or bankruptcy.

What a way to bring a child into the world.

Michael Klozotsky will be at the HFMA ANI conference next week. If you wish to meet with him, call him at (217) 369-4075 or email him, even once you arrive in Las Vegas. He'd love to talk with his devoted readers.

Get Hired - jobsInsideARM.comHiring? Post a job - jobsInsideARM.com

Comments

Comment from Anonymous on June 19, 2008 at 1:17PM EST

Adding to the misery is the simple fact that most doctors will not perform a vaginal birth after 2 Caesarian's, and many not after the first. Even more unfortunate is that with liability insurance rising for medical practicioners, more doctors and hospitals push for Caesarians at the first moment of fetal distress and observe a very short window of time to allow for natuaral progression for the woman. So ultimately it is the insurance companies that are affecting our ability to grow a family. Sad, truly sad.

Comment from Anonymous on June 19, 2008 at 5:22PM EST

My understanding is that statistically the amount of c-sections is increasing and happens about 1/3 the time. The procedure is now too common to treate differently.

Comment from Anonymous on June 24, 2008 at 8:28AM EST

OK, so let's get this straight. Insurance companies are upset that they're having to pay more for c-sections. And the OBGYNs and hospitals are pushing for more and more c-sections every year, thereby leading to increased c-section rates and increased costs to the insurers. So the insurance companies decide that they're going to provide less or no coverage in c-section scenarios. Will this be enough to slow the OBGYNs' push for c-sections, or will the OBGYNs continue their push, which will result in much more bad medical debt? I guess we'll just have to wait and see. In any event, it seems that the insurers really have no one to blame but the OBGYNs and hospitals. The insurers have enabled the AMA to create a monster, and now they have to get Pandora's box closed again. Unfortunately, the public seems to be the party that will suffer the most.

Care to Comment?

(Please read our comments policy first.)

From:
Show my identity with comment

Leave this field empty
Interrior Concepts
Lariat
Sentinel
West Asset Management
  • DAKCS
  • West Asset Management
  • CRS
  • B-Line
  • Interactive Data

Log In

Already registered? Log in here.





Forgot your password?

Register for FREE with insideARM

Create an account with insideARM and get access to our FREE newsletters and industry reports.








 

Check all | Uncheck all

Daily news and analysis
* Recommended *
Credit cards
Healthcare
Government/Municipal
Student loans
Mortgage
Auto finance
Collection agency operations
Collection technology
Debt purchasing
Recovery management
Hiring/Staffing
Job opportunities
Leave this field empty
 

You are already registered!

The email address you've entered is already in our database, meaning you've previously registered on insideARM.com.

All you have to do is log in using the form on the left.