No, they don't. In a perfect world they would have known about the issue, stepped in and cared for the child. But in a perfect world they wouldn't have needed to.Originally Posted by Michelle
The parents are culpable and it's a damn shame that nobody else knew what was going on and was able to help.
When someone is on medicaid, they have to provide proof of services and then the payments go directly to the provider. When my MIL accessed her long term care insurance to pay for home health services, she had to pay the provider, then the provider submitted the paperwork to the LTC company and MIL was reimbursed. Either method required showing proof of provider care. I can not just call my health insurance company and say I saw the doctor and paid out of pocket so they need to reimburse me. I have to have proof I saw the provider. It seems a no-brainer that someone collecting money to pay for home health care should have to provide proof of that care.
"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant." –Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in his Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech, Dec. 10, 1964
“Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You’re thinking of Jesus.” - John Fugelsang"
In the case of state aid, or ANY type of insurance where a minor requires atypical care in order to sustain life, I believe that NO, the parent should not be allowed to opt out. Now, of course there are capable and devoted parents that will train to care for the child's needs, be it feeding tubes or whatever. In that case, they STILL need some level of monitoring. Perhaps a lot less frequent. But they must demonstrate consistently that they have the skills and devotion it takes to manage the child's life.
I'm not talking a case where they get second, third, 100th chances. IMO a parent that fails to demonstrate they can handle the needs should never be allowed to "cancel" or "opt out."
Regardless of were they getting paid for the services or they weren't or the home health agency was getting paid or WHAT, there should be check-ins on this child's progress!
So much wrong with this story, and so many failed individuals and agencies!
Yes, it is a slippery slope when we talk about what some perceive as "Big Brother" monitoring our parenting. Yes, the system is crowded and seems spread thin and has been for years. Yes,I believe in the case where specialized care is needed because a child can't eat like other children, through the mouth, that parents should be required to have regular checks of the child's condition and progress. Medicare, cash pay, Aetna, it doesn't matter. The system needs to operate such that children that need bedside assistance are checked on regularly!!
Maybe I'm just confused and need to reread the OP, but what exactly was the state paying the parents directly for? The actual medical care and supplies would have to go through a provider and the payments would have gone straight to that provider. I've never heard of Medicaid reimbursing or making any kind of direct payment to patients or their parents (if the patient is a minor).
Nancy, mom to Spencer and Taylor
No, I don't think so. Unless they were "treating" her and saw rapid weight loss...etc. The doctors and Medicaid are NOT DCF and should not have to police their patients, only care for them.
They were being paid by SS for her disability, getting insurance through the state, and the home care she received before her parents canceled it was paid for by Medicaid.
Apparently she had not been to a doctor or seen by caseworkers since 2006, so there was no record of her weight loss after that.
would Blue Cross/Blue Shield be culpable for a parent turning down medical treatment the insurance company would have covered?
No.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote