I am usually a reader more than a writer at this site but I wanted to share my frustration. Our adoption attorney called and said that she is warning all her families that haven't been placed yet that they need to factor in the expense of the hospital fees for the baby's delivery now, even if mom has full coverage from Medicaid. Medicaid has caught on that adoptive families are using them to keep our costs down and has authorized the hospitals to "hold the baby hostage" from discharge until the adoptive family commits to the bill and pays in full in some cases. If the adoptive family trys to allow Medicaid to take over, Medicaid then sends the bill to birthmom and ruins her credit if she doesn't pay. This of course puts the adoptive family in a nether world because our own insurance won't pick up until we have guardianship papers and for our state thats 10 days later when bmom signs off. If she changes her mom we are still stuck with the bill. Our attorney said take the loss and claim with the tax credit later, but as most of you know, its really two years out when you can use the tax credit, (2006 credits can't be filed till 2007 tax year and those taxes aren't filed until 2008 April) So you are out the money. Another huge gamble on what already is a BIG maybe depending on Bmom. God forbid if there were complications with the baby during delivery. We have been burned many times, up to $20,000.00 over 10 years. We have had some foster kids in our care (not our preferable route to try to adopt. A lot of drama on that side of the house) but still haven't adopted yet. With the economy the way it is and adoption expenses being what they are, we are thinking it's too expensive to adopt! Uhg, as much as we want this, I don't know if we can afford to do this anymore.
Sorry, I misunderstood as well when I PMed you. Although, I will say when we adopted DD last year in Georgia we did not have to sign anything before they let us take her home. I guess that would be because Medicaid hadn't caught on yet. Our insurance kicked in upon us taking DD home but definitely not at the hopsital. Well, this is definitely something DH and I are going to have to think about before adoption #2. Thanks for informing us.
There is a third option, and probably a fourth and fifth, that does not require a national healthcare plan. Your lawyer and others in the legal community could lobby the state legislature for laws similar to those in AZ and other states in regards to adoption related expenses and healthcare coverage. This could help the citizens of Georgia out immensely, too. Local laws are much more effective than federal laws. (I'll admit I'm scared of a national healthcare system when I see what the feds do w/ No Child Left Behind and the federal reserve over the last few weeks. Also, I have had medical care in the military, and it was awful. I think we need the feds to clean up what they are in charge of before we give them our healthcare, too. Not trying to be snarky, just my take on that issue.)
The issue here is where Insurances fall on the side of adoption and what the law states as to who the "parents" are at any given time don't jive, hence the netherworld I mentioned. This whole mess is a reason for national healthcare. The baby would be covered because they were a US citizen, not under a policy where the insurance companies try to beat each other out for who's not going to pay first!
I only asked that jgs explain herself. I did not say that she was saying it or this how she felt. However if she did in fact feel this way I was merely explaining why. The way the post came across was rather insensitive and I also said "Shame on the lawyer" Sometimes people believe what their lawyers say and this being the internet there is always possibility of misunderstaning. I also understood the post differently. The reality is, if a baby is released from a hospital, the hospital likes to know who and what insurance baby is going to be covered by. I will go back to my original statement in that insurance companies and medicaid are picking up on so many senarios these days and placing all kinds of exclusions in policies. I am no way in favor of universal healthcare but at least have one set of regulation not only with insurace but all things adoption. EZ
It is not your decision to make on whether she takes the baby home or not. She is the legal parent.
If we let her take the baby home for the ten days to work around the insurance, the attorney said then we run the risk she definitely changes her mind, and then she asked is that a risk we want to run.
Brenda - that is exactly what I was thinking....isn't that choice hers?
I don't think the last 2 posts are reading the point of that sentence...the APs aren't making "THE" decision...it reads like the AP+bmom are united in "working the system" to get the insurance to pay....APs would be taking baby home, but "let" (for lack of a better word) bmom take home in order to get insurance to pay. (which I still don't get , seeing that labor and deliver isn't a baby's cost/coverage issue) The point of all of this seems to be geting medicaid to pay...not APs making decisions for anyone. Am I reading that correct...not trying to read between lines or put something there that ins't. Not trying to anyway :)
Expenses for a failed adoption might qualify for the credit if followed by a successful adoption, but the two adoption efforts would be considered as one adoption and subject to the dollar limit per eligible child. [url=http://taxes.about.com/od/deductionscredits/qt/adoptioncredit.htm]Adoption Tax Credit - How to Claim the Adoption Credit[/url] Failed adoption attempts count, as long as its a domestic or special needs adoption. The credit is cumulative, however: if more than one adoption attempt doesnt succeed, or if you succeed after failing one or more times, your credit for all the attempts is limited to [url=http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/Raisekids/P37251.asp]$10,000 adoption credit has many strings - MSN Money[/url]
Binkybear is correct. After a couple of calls in last couple of weeks where our insurance said they would'nt cover us, I finally got a supervisor today and she was able to get in print that they would cover the baby expenses retroactively. She says that its sort of policy for them to say no first and then see how far we push for an answer. Cost effective she says. Anyway she was very cool and stayed on phone to look up the info and we found we are good. This was a wonderful find for me and my husband. It means we're back in the adoption game.
Congrats!! That is really crappy though they do that. Cost effective maybe but unethical!! Grr I hate insurance companies sometimes!
jgs; I would 100% get that in writing NOW. Push (PUSH!) until you do. I can't count the number of times I have been told something wrong and on a follow up call I've been told that the prior person was wrong and, basically, tough cookies. All in all, I'm glad you called and hopefully they will continue to be on the up and up! :)
Our insurance company "couldn't" give us an answer when we asked when coverage for the child we planned to adopt would begin. They basically refused to give us an answer either way. Our agency informed us that our state mandated that it be retroactive to birth, and that if our insurance company fought us (as many apparently do), to tell them that they would be hearing from our lawyer. Our lawyer also offer to call for us when we first met with her. In the end, we only had to tell them that we knew the law, and ask for a card to be issued. It is a shame that you have to bully people in to doing not only the right thing, but what is mandated by law! Yikes!
OK, I'm going to be honest here, and now realizing that we are just talking about the baby's hospital expenses and not the cost of bmom's care and the actual birth (which the OP said "birth expenses", I think why everyone was confused) - I don't see the big deal about paying for the baby's hospital expenses. We were considered for a couple situations where we were told we would have to pay for the baby's expenses, and were quoted if all goes fine, that would be around $1500. Yes, that's a lot of money, but we're talking about adoptions that run in the $17-25K range. I don't see how this makes or breaks someone's decision to adopt. True, a baby could end up in the NICU and rack up a huge bill, but you can also decide not to go forward, as painful as that is.
I just wanted to say that I am glad that this is working out. Your original post about not being able to adopt did make me very sad about the idea that someone was thinking about giving up on their dream of building a family.:cheer:
After a couple of calls in last couple of weeks where our insurance said they would'nt cover us, I finally got a supervisor today and she was able to get in print that they would cover the baby expenses retroactively. She says that its sort of policy for them to say no first and then see how far we push for an answer. Cost effective she says. Anyway she was very cool and stayed on phone to look up the info and we found we are good. This was a wonderful find for me and my husband. It means we're back in the adoption game.
Having fought insurance companies numerous times, do make SURE as Jenna says that you get something in writing. I can't believe they told you that their policy was to make people "push" for benefits that are rightfully theirs. URGGGGGH. In any event, good news!
We got it in writing with the insurance company that the baby expenses are retroactive so we are back on track. Thanks to those who were supportive. Much appreciated.