NYT Article: "After Caesareans, Some See Higher Insurance Cost"

[Ceepa]

By DENISE GRADY
Published: June 1, 2008
When the Golden Rule Insurance Company rejected her application for health coverage last year, Peggy Robertson was mystified.

“It made no sense,” said Ms. Robertson, 39, who lives in Centennial, Colo. “I’m in perfect health.”

She was turned down because she had given birth by Caesarean section. Having the operation once increases the odds that it will be performed again, and if she became pregnant and needed another Caesarean, Golden Rule did not want to pay for it. A letter from the company explained that if she had been sterilized after the Caesarean, or if she were over 40 and had given birth two or more years before applying, she might have qualified.


www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/health/01insure.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[brittone2]

You've got to love the double-edged sword of actions like this occurring in a country where women often can't even *find* a doctor to "allow" a vbac when they want to attempt one, and at a time when the c-section rate is 33-34 percent (and even higher in some hospitals).

[Ceepa]

You've got to love the double-edged sword of actions like this occurring in a country where women often can't even *find* a doctor to "allow" a vbac when they want to attempt one, and at a time when the c-section rate is 33-34 percent (and even higher in some hospitals).

It's like a kick in the gut, isn't it?

[Wife_and_mommy]

This was bound to happen, imo. The fewer $$ the insurance companies have to shell out the better for them.

I also wonder if they'll start taking into consideration the circumstances surrounding the birth that ends in c-sec. I imagine that the elective c-sec option will quickly be lost. It's only a matter of time.

[DrSally]

Yes I saw this. It totally S#$ks and is so unfair. The C-section rate is so high and there aren't many docs willing to do VBACS these days. It's such a catch-22.

[trales]

I totally feel like most of woman's health is a Catch-22. My insurance does not really cover birth control, and if we want to TTC, then we have to pay an outrageous rider for the policy. If you don't want prego woman, pay of BC.

We need some kind of reform.

[DrSally]

It just baffles me that some insurance co's don't pay for BC.

[brittone2]

It just baffles me that some insurance co's don't pay for BC.

And many of those companies that deny coverage for BC have historically covered Viagra.