Browse by Tags

• Florida law mandates insurance payments for autism

  Some good news from the south: Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that requires insurance companies to pay for treatment costs for autistic children – up to $36,000 per year, with a lifetime cap of $200,000. The bill was approved after another more complex piece of legislation that will offer inexpensive health insurance ($150 a month) to uninsured state residents. Read More... Posted May 03 2008, 03:00 PM by Brett Singer with | with 2 comment(s) Filed under: news, autism, law, insurance, health care, florida, legislation, health insurance, governor, legal, Brett Singer, senate, uninsured, legislature

• Probe Uncovers Bad Behavior at Bootcamps for Kids

  A federal probe has evidence of shady marketing practices at "bootcamps" for kids, also known as residential treatment facilities or behavior modification centers. These places, in case you don't know, claim they can "rehabilitate" children and teens with serious behavior problems such as violence, defiance, and drug abuse. Since no kid in his or her right mind would willingly check into one of these joints, some centers "abduct" the kids with the parents' permission. Oh, and the federal investigation began with thousands of allegations of abuse, sometimes resulting in death.  What did the probe find?   Read More... Posted Apr 24 2008, 06:37 PM by Kelly Mills with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: children, kids, parents, teens, discipline, insurance, punishment, abduction, bootcamp, federal, behavior modification, residential treatment facility, investigation, probe

• Weekly Check-Up: Don't Get Sick, Kids, Cuz You Aren't Covered For That

  Let's see: Democrats want to expand the State Children's Insurance Program with increased federal funding. Republicans don't want to. In fact, they are looking for some cuts. In particular, the White House opposes possible expansion of the program through an increase in the federal tobacco tax and cuts in Medicare payments to insurance companies. On the one hand, we have sick and injured children who receive medical care; on the other, we have those poor tobacco and insurance companies. Awww, it's a Sophie's Choice situation here. The White House opposes the Democratic plan for “philosophical and ideological” reasons, because it would steer us towards “a single-payer health care system with rationing and price controls.” Perhaps they'd like to deliver their ideological reasons to chronically ill children whose families can't afford treatment? But just to be safe, tell every kid you see to wash their hands, eat healthy, and try not to develop asthma from the polluted air or cancer from pesticide exposure. Because you know, there's some insurance executives who might end up having to get the basic Mercedes with the V-8 rather than the V-12 engine if this all goes through, and that would be a tragedy. Posted Jul 11 2007, 12:15 PM by Kelly Mills with | with 3 comment(s) Filed under: Cancer, insurance, sick kids, Republican, illness, democrat

• The Sad State of Infant Mortality Rates in the South

  This is what makes me tear up and scream at the monitor all at once: Many of us have iPods, strollers that cost more than our first car, food that spoils before we ever eat it and peds appointments always just around the corner. And yet, right in our own backyard, the infant mortality rate is climbing. Babies born, mostly to impoverished women of color in the South, are dying in alarming numbers of causes that should be simple to treat. Many of these families experience a perfect storm of low birth weight, inadequate prenatal treatment, lack of information about basic baby care.   As a result, 11.4 deaths per thousand infants born occurs in Mississippi alone.  The U.S. average is 5.4.  In this and neighboring states, mother-care is deeply embedded in this crisis, with many women who smoke, have hypertension, are diabetic or are obese having children early and without adequate support or information. There have been hopeful and steep declines in infant mortality rates in areas where privately-funded organizations send local women door-to-door to counsel pregnant women and post-natal mothers. It is clear that racism, poverty, insurance bullshit and limited (if any) access to medical treatment is working against effective interventions. [photo credit: Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times]  Posted Apr 23 2007, 10:04 AM by Jessica Ashley (Sassafrass) with | with no comments Filed under: racism, infant mortality rate, insurance, america, premature birth, prenatal care

• From the "Who Knew?" Department: Getting Life Insurance Before You Get Pregnant is Better

  Before I had children, obtaining life insurance was one of the last things I thought of.  After all, I wasn't yet a parent, right?  So who did I have to support?  Apparently, though, I went at the thing all back asswards, because according to this article, it's better to obtain coverage even before you get pregnant.  Huh?  No, really.  And here's why: 1.  Rates are lower when you're younger. 2.  Potential medical problems during pregnancy, even relatively routine ones like gestational diabetes and high blood pressure can make rates zoom or even get you denied entirely from having coverage. 3.  Having more undefinable issues like post-partum depression can really muck up your chances of being insured.  If you have PPD, your insurance company considers you a suicide risk and jacks up your premiums accordingly. Yeah, yeah, what a racket, huh?  Just go get your insurance now.  You can thank me later.  Posted Mar 18 2007, 12:53 PM by Karen Murphy with | with no comments Filed under: health, pregnancy, insurance, finances

• Independent Midwifery in England May Become Obsolete

  Half my children were born attended by a midwife, and for me, having this choice made a huge difference in the birth experience both for me and for my children.  I can't imagine having had this choice and then having it stripped away by well-intentioned but nevertheless not well thought-out (read: stupid) governmental regulations, but pretty soon if current government plans in England to require professional indemnity insurance for all midwives goes through, lots of would-be parents are going to be left with fewer choices when it comes to catching their babies.  Midwives employed by the National Health Service (NHS:  the U.K.'s publicly-funded, "free" health care system) won't be affected, but the NHS is overworked, underfunded, and understaffed, leaving a strong need for independent midwives to relieve the pressure and provide service for parents and babies.  Efforts are being made to come up with a suitable alternative for the independent midwives, but it may end up being a case of "too little, too late".  And I'd like to know what English parents will do then. Posted Mar 12 2007, 01:06 PM by Karen Murphy with | with no comments Filed under: england, insurance, midwifery, stupid governmental regulations

• Indonesian Hospital Keeps Baby as Collateral for Non-Payment

  An Indonesian clinic is keeping a baby girl born on December 21 until her parents can pay their bill. The baby's parents have an outstanding bill of $250. The mother was allowed to leave the hospital without paying it, but was not allowed to take her baby with her. The clinic says the parents agreed to this arrangement. The couple has already paid about half the bill by borrowing money from friends and family, but they have no idea how they will pay the balance since the baby's father makes approximately $1 per day as a bike-taxi operator. Even more shocking, the clinic is adding the daily cost of caring for the baby to the bill. Every day, the baby's parents owe a little more. Indonesia does have a program to help poor families with medical bills, but the parents did not have the relevant card. So until they can come up with $125, the clinic will continue extorting the couple and holding their newborn baby hostage. [via Yahoo]  Posted Jan 26 2007, 02:01 PM by Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: dads, indonesia, insurance, moms, baby held hostage

• 8-Year-Old Boy Sues Parents

  An 8-year-old Minnesota boy is suing his parents in state Supreme Court, seeking damages for the grievous injuries sustained when he was thrown from his mom's SUV because of an improperly-buckled seat belt.  Teddy Harrison, now confined to a wheelchair after suffering brain damage from the injuries that occurred in 2001, is suing his parents, Amy and Ted Sr., in a lawsuit filed on Teddy's behalf by his grandmother. Teddy's parents are hoping they will lose the case, because that would hopefully force their insurance company to pony up on their $100,000 policy. Wait.  Is that my head exploding again? The fallout from this case could be enormous.  It "could make it easier for parents of injured children to collect from insurance companies in certain instances, but caregivers and insurers could find themselves facing financial responsibility if a child gets hurt while riding in an improperly installed car seat." And as many as 82% of car seats on the road today are improperly installed, often due to the confusing LATCH system, which was supposed to simplify installation.  In addition, "motorists involved in wrecks with child-carrying drivers could try to skirt financial responsibility by pointing to a parent's negligent car-seat use".  So what are we to make of this?  It looks like either way, it's a good time to check out your local car-seat inspection station, to ensure that you're not one of the 82%, or that your child doesn't become a statistic like Teddy and have to sue you one day.  Posted Jan 08 2007, 06:00 PM by Karen Murphy with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: insurance, courts, car seats