…it is not known how much of the overall increase in Caesareans is because of a rise in unnecessary operations, or how many Caesareans are done at the mother’s request, according to a 2006 report by the National Institutes of Health.
“I think it’s really a very small amount, but we need more data,” said Dr. Mary D’Alton, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University Medical Center, and an author of the report.
She said she was amazed to hear that insurers would charge higher premiums or deny coverage because of a past Caesarean.
“I would think if it’s happening, the medical profession has to take a stand,” Dr. D’Alton said.
But to people familiar with the rough and tumble world of individual insurance, the companies’ practices are no surprise.
Individual insurance differs sharply from the group coverage with which most people are familiar. Group policies generally require that the insurer cover everybody in the group, and charge the same rates for all. But with individual coverage, insurers in many states can vary their prices based on medical history, exclude certain services or reject anyone they consider a bad risk. (Several states, however, including New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, ban such practices.)
Insurers say they need these strategies to protect themselves, because some customers apply only after they get sick or pregnant, skewing the pool toward people with high expenses.
Read it all, also from the front page of this morning’s New York Times.
Oh, cry me a river! Look at all the insurance companies going bankrupt all the time…they have to protect themselves, don’t they?
[/sarcasm]
Just another example of corporate short sighted greed in action. This is not good for the insurance companies because it will lead to the eventual nationalization of health insurance. I think that will be horrible, but stories like this are fuel for the fire.
Don’t medical insurance companies exist to help sick and/or pregnant people? Sounds a bit like a school complaining about all the people showing up to learn.
When the profit motive is erased from this nations medical field, then I’ll say we have a good health care system.
If you think medical care costs a lot now, waite untill it’s free! Without a profit no business will be open long. Much cost increase is because of government regulations which it seems the people want or they would not elect the officials who think it up. Many states have mandated coverage for lots of things that are very expensive such as HIV, pregnancy, drug and rehab yet only few use them and prefer to pay less for policies that didn’t have them. There was a monostary of nuns that had to pay for a policy that covered pregnancy and drug rehab! Most policies do not cover pregnancy untill a year after the policy is written. As for C-sections, the company knows that after one section there will usuall be others if pregnancy occurs and with anesthesia, operating room and additional stay it will cost them more. As to why there are so many sections, some women think a section will not pain as a normal delivery (not so) or their figure will be preserved (also not so.) In ancient days when I did OB my section rate was only 5% and I never lost one mother and only one baby which had a congenital defect not compatible with life. Now the section rate is around 30-40% This is because labor is with fetal monitors. Anything that goes wrong on the tracing is a manditory section. Usually nothing was wrong, but the standard of care today by the courts is if the baby is not perfect then the doctor and hospital pays. The average OB has 2-3 suites in process at a time. Our Ob docs pay about $240,000/ year for malpractice insurance. So section it is if there is the least question. Oh BTW, the results are not any better than years ago. Also, any high risk pregnancy or baby is shipped right out to the university hospital which has sovereign immunity. Welcome to the real world. Also, most Ob docs get out of deliveries before 40 years of age and just do Gyn.
This is the problem…a for-profit health care system is one that says “you are in need and you MUST pay me whatever I ask before I help you.” This is not a spirit of charity or love. Being paid a living wage is not the same as being in it for profit.
Health care should NOT be a business. Businesses exist to make money and no one should have the right to profit (i.e. make more money than they need) from someone else’s misfortune or trouble.
Capitalism and health care are the worst possible combination. Capitalism works well for business, but not when it comes to hospitals. Pay the workers, yes, but the system should not exist for the sake of money.
insurance companies are part of the problem, ambulance chasing lawyers play their role too. I think there is pretty much a direct correlation in the rise of caesareans and the payouts from malpractice suits…..
RE: “This is the problem…a for-profit health care system is one that says “you are in need and you MUST pay me whatever I ask before I help you.—
Well, actually, that is true for, say, the “food system” and the “water system” and the “transportation system” and all other “systems.”
One must pay the grocer whatever the grocer asks before he will “help” you.
In actuality, individual payment for services is merely asking individuals to take responsibility for their own needs.
Further, “profit” is not at all about making “more money than they need.” “Profit” is about making [i]anything above the cost of delivery of services or goods such that the person offering said services and goods is willing to continue offering them.[/i]
Of course, with a socialized “health care system” [the word “system” disguising the fact that people are involved in delivery of the goods and services] one achieves far far far far fewer people [i]who are willing to continue delivering the “goods and services”[/i] which inevitably results in a decline in both quantity AND quality of those goods and services.
I assume — regretfully — that that’s the point — a decline in both the quantity and the quality of health care goods and services.