$950,000 travel insurance mistake
Nov 18th, 2014, 09:17 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$950,000 travel insurance mistake
I just read an article about a couple who are left with a $950,000 hospital bill that their travel insurance won't pay.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/million...-u-s-1.2107020
Yet another instance of people NOT READING their insurance policy and ASSUMING they are covered for something that they are not coverd for. In this case, a 'pre-existing condition'. As usual, they blame the insurance company not themselves.
Regardless of what anyone thinks in this particular case (I personally consider it their own fault for not reading their policy and making sure they would be covered given the situation), it should serve as a warning to all travellers to READ your insurance policy and know what is and is not covered when you travel. If it isn't clear about a particular question you have, phone and ask for clarification and then get it in writing.
Blaming the insurance company rather than accepting responsibility for your own actions may be human nature but it doesn't get you out of the jam you got yourself into. In this case, the mother says, 'It didn't say anything about pre-existing conditions in the PAMPHLET.'
The same applies to any kind of insurance such as car rental, lost baggage, etc. that a traveller might use.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/million...-u-s-1.2107020
Yet another instance of people NOT READING their insurance policy and ASSUMING they are covered for something that they are not coverd for. In this case, a 'pre-existing condition'. As usual, they blame the insurance company not themselves.
Regardless of what anyone thinks in this particular case (I personally consider it their own fault for not reading their policy and making sure they would be covered given the situation), it should serve as a warning to all travellers to READ your insurance policy and know what is and is not covered when you travel. If it isn't clear about a particular question you have, phone and ask for clarification and then get it in writing.
Blaming the insurance company rather than accepting responsibility for your own actions may be human nature but it doesn't get you out of the jam you got yourself into. In this case, the mother says, 'It didn't say anything about pre-existing conditions in the PAMPHLET.'
The same applies to any kind of insurance such as car rental, lost baggage, etc. that a traveller might use.
Nov 18th, 2014, 12:57 PM
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article is written by a writer who writes from a perspective tuscanlife. She was pregnant and did not ascertain whether or not her coverage would cover anything related to her being pregnant. That is exactly what I meant by asking about a particular question.
People can argue 'pre-existing condition' all they want. I for one would consider it normal to ask an insurer if they will cover me for an early birth if I were pregnant and planning to travel. I doubt she even contacted the insurance company at all.
But let's go through it if you want tuscanlife. She applied for Blue Cross. Start here: https://wwwi.sk.bluecross.ca/CGI-BIN...01+DLYQUE0+PRD
She met the less than 32 weeks pregnant criteria. I would guess however that she was told during the last 2 years (at the time of her bleeding) not to travel. But because she was told she could travel at 6 months, she ignored that criteria. What do you think? Did she in fact blow that criteria? She had a pre-existing bleeding during her pregnancy. At best she ticked the box that she had not been told to travel in the last 2 years, incorrectly.
My guess, is she ticked the boxes, got a quick quote for $54 for 2 weeks for both herself and her husband and that was that. Applying for coverage does not take you through the entire policy.
People often confuse GETTING coverage with BEING covered. They do the simple fill in the box application and then ignore READING the policy to see what is covered. She points to the pamphlet not mentioning 'pre-existing' conditions. Does she point to the POLICY not mentioning them? No.
Now take the process a bit further. Let's say they did cover her delivery. What happens to the baby's care? The baby was in hospital for 2 months after the delivery. NO, the baby did not have travel insurance. Read more here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle4241665/
So even if you remove her own care, they would still have the baby's care to pay for. Her provincial coverage would give her $200 per day for herself and $400 per day for the baby while in intensive care. Note, the article doesn't mention she will get that money paid to her back home. But a Canadian hospital charges $8k per day for that care, never mind a US hospital.
So there would have been a huge bill just for the baby as there was from the Canadian hospital that the Australian couple in the link found out they weren't insured for after it was too late. Note the difference between the labour and caesarean cost vs. the baby's care cost.
It wouldn't matter if the insurer had paid for the delivery, the baby still wouldn't have been covered. $19k paid, $707,000 not paid in the case of the Australian couple's bill.
So you tell me tuscanlife, should a pregnant woman travel? If she does decide to do so, should she be very, very careful to make sure she knows what is and is not covered by any travel medical insurance they buy?
Who is responsible for making sure adequate insurance coverage is in place? You or the insurance company? That's a rhetorical question.
The couple screwed up. Now they have a bill to pay. Others should learn from the mistake. Instead, I suggest many will read about it, then buy insurance and not read the policy.
People can argue 'pre-existing condition' all they want. I for one would consider it normal to ask an insurer if they will cover me for an early birth if I were pregnant and planning to travel. I doubt she even contacted the insurance company at all.
But let's go through it if you want tuscanlife. She applied for Blue Cross. Start here: https://wwwi.sk.bluecross.ca/CGI-BIN...01+DLYQUE0+PRD
She met the less than 32 weeks pregnant criteria. I would guess however that she was told during the last 2 years (at the time of her bleeding) not to travel. But because she was told she could travel at 6 months, she ignored that criteria. What do you think? Did she in fact blow that criteria? She had a pre-existing bleeding during her pregnancy. At best she ticked the box that she had not been told to travel in the last 2 years, incorrectly.
My guess, is she ticked the boxes, got a quick quote for $54 for 2 weeks for both herself and her husband and that was that. Applying for coverage does not take you through the entire policy.
People often confuse GETTING coverage with BEING covered. They do the simple fill in the box application and then ignore READING the policy to see what is covered. She points to the pamphlet not mentioning 'pre-existing' conditions. Does she point to the POLICY not mentioning them? No.
Now take the process a bit further. Let's say they did cover her delivery. What happens to the baby's care? The baby was in hospital for 2 months after the delivery. NO, the baby did not have travel insurance. Read more here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle4241665/
So even if you remove her own care, they would still have the baby's care to pay for. Her provincial coverage would give her $200 per day for herself and $400 per day for the baby while in intensive care. Note, the article doesn't mention she will get that money paid to her back home. But a Canadian hospital charges $8k per day for that care, never mind a US hospital.
So there would have been a huge bill just for the baby as there was from the Canadian hospital that the Australian couple in the link found out they weren't insured for after it was too late. Note the difference between the labour and caesarean cost vs. the baby's care cost.
It wouldn't matter if the insurer had paid for the delivery, the baby still wouldn't have been covered. $19k paid, $707,000 not paid in the case of the Australian couple's bill.
So you tell me tuscanlife, should a pregnant woman travel? If she does decide to do so, should she be very, very careful to make sure she knows what is and is not covered by any travel medical insurance they buy?
Who is responsible for making sure adequate insurance coverage is in place? You or the insurance company? That's a rhetorical question.
The couple screwed up. Now they have a bill to pay. Others should learn from the mistake. Instead, I suggest many will read about it, then buy insurance and not read the policy.
Nov 18th, 2014, 01:06 PM
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They screwed up, I'm sorry for them but I do not agree that the insurance company is the bad guy here. The baby would not have been covered no matter what. But the story as is usually the case, jumps on the 'this poor couple and the insurance company that won't pay' angle, just like they do every time and the couple of course take the same view. NOT OUR FAULT. Everything is always someone else's fault.
Travel forums such as this one should be telling people, DO your due diligence in whatever it is you plan to do as YOU are the one responsible for YOUR actions, not someone else. The media can agree with you all they want and you can blame others all you want but in the end it is YOU who will pay the price, not anyone else.
Travel forums such as this one should be telling people, DO your due diligence in whatever it is you plan to do as YOU are the one responsible for YOUR actions, not someone else. The media can agree with you all they want and you can blame others all you want but in the end it is YOU who will pay the price, not anyone else.
Nov 22nd, 2014, 03:08 PM
#5
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think some of the problem here lies in the fact that as Canadians we get so much of health care provided for us through our national/provincial plan that we have no idea what a hospital stay, surgery, or neonatal intensive care costs. Inexperienced travellers purchase insurance naively assuming they are 'covered' in the same way they are covered by medicare at home. And of course younger people in good health tend to take for granted that they will stay that way. I don't recall concerning myself with insurance during some of early travels, but now as a senior I not only have year round coverage as part of an extended health policy, but I try to remember to check it before booking a major trip and again before leaving home. No likes to think about the 'what ifs' but it beats having to contend with the 'if onlys'.
Nov 23rd, 2014, 07:28 AM
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I agree eliztravels2. I think pregnancy however is something you would think people would be very careful to check on and yet this happens.
What amazed me the most when I did a little research and yet made perfect sense when I thought about it, was that the baby has no insurance once born. This is the NORM with travel insurance. So even if the mother had been covered for the birth, the time the baby spent in ICU would still not have been covered and that as the link on the Australian couple shows is where the bulk of the cost is in cases like this.
So to me it says that travelling while pregnant has a huge financial risk attached to it. I doubt many people realize that.
What amazed me the most when I did a little research and yet made perfect sense when I thought about it, was that the baby has no insurance once born. This is the NORM with travel insurance. So even if the mother had been covered for the birth, the time the baby spent in ICU would still not have been covered and that as the link on the Australian couple shows is where the bulk of the cost is in cases like this.
So to me it says that travelling while pregnant has a huge financial risk attached to it. I doubt many people realize that.
Nov 24th, 2014, 02:30 PM
#7
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nov 25th, 2014, 09:20 AM
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notice how yet again there is no clarification of the difference between the costs of the birth itself vs. the cost of the baby' care in ICU.
It makes me wonder if these so called 'news reporters' do any real research into a subject. This follow up article should be stressing the two costs are separate; the baby's costs are far more than the cost of the birth and that cost was NEVER going to be covered no matter what.
It makes me wonder if these so called 'news reporters' do any real research into a subject. This follow up article should be stressing the two costs are separate; the baby's costs are far more than the cost of the birth and that cost was NEVER going to be covered no matter what.
Dec 4th, 2014, 09:46 AM
#9
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This couple will most likely do what so many Americans without insurance coverage do....walk away from the bill. It will be absorbed into our cost of doing business. That is why American insurance and medical treatment is so expensive in the first place....multitudes of uninsured.
Dec 4th, 2014, 10:46 AM
#10
The numbers of uninsured (now somewhat reduced) certainly don't help, but the real reason American medical costs are so high is because of the private insurance companies, busy making profits and introducing amazing layers of bureaucracy. Countries with single payer systems manage to deliver better results for half the cost per citizen. And don't have uninsured citizens.
