Advertisements
Advertisements
I agree with you, mdesi. Further, let's remember that it's not the AP's that file for the Medicaid, it's the birthmother. And, if I'm not mistaken, agencies/attorneys can request that the birthmother file for Medicaid; but they can't force her. In the case where she might not want to/can't qualify....maybe the ap's will have to pay for medicals. (I know in our case, we refuse to pay for medicals previous to birth, nor will we pay for much of any expenses.)
I know of more than one couple who had great insurance and it picked up the expenses----after the relinquishment....AND, covered from the time of birth. (And now, because they've lost their big-benefit jobs, they're on medicaid insurance themselves...and still planning to adopt---and not independently, but through an agency.)
Further, most hospitals will take payments from anyone owing them $$....so the idea that a hospital would 'hold a baby hostage' seems like a lot of bunk to me.
Again, I"m with mdesi......I think you need to find another attorney---especially when the statement was made about any birthmother taking a baby home. (That statement really irks me....)
Sincerely,
Linny
Advertisements
I don't know about other states, but I do know about Georgia. When my first grandchild was born, his mother was unmarried, under 21, and under my insurance. Before we were allowed to leave the hospital, I had to sign a statement that I would be responsible for all of the BABY'S expenses, in the event they were not covered by the insurance company. That included circumcision, time under a sunlamp for jaundice, etc.
My second daughter was covered by Medicaid when her baby was born, but again, before they left the hospital she had to sign a statement that she would accept responsibility and personally pay all charges for the baby that were not paid by Medicaid.
Neither of these babies were adopted out, but it seems reasonable that the hospital, if it were aware of PAPs, would ask them to sign before the baby leaves. Then, if doesn't matter to the hospital whether the mother chooses to parent or not -- they have a signed agreement from someone to pay the balance, period!
mdesi
Whoa, Aclee and EZ, she said her LAWYER presented this as a possible scenario. She never said that she thought that, but that when she asked her lawyer more questions the lawyer told her that. She was ASKED if that was the risk she was willing to take, not ASKING us.
FTR - To the OP, you lawyer sound shady. Please save yourself some trouble in the long run and look at a Quad A attorney. This person is using fear tactics to get you where he/she wants you, and this is highly unethical. This person is preying on you. No one is preying on medicaid. There is nothing for medicaid to "catch on to." The birth mother's expenses should be covered by whatever medical insurance or coverage she has, and the baby's generally fall into the lap of the AP's. That money is at risk during the 10 days. Also, if any hospital is not taking medicaid in an adoptive situation that is unethical for 2 reasons. First, it is coersion to the birth mother. Second, they don't want to settle for the amount of money that medicaid will pay, which is much lower than they can charge AP's. Run, don't walk, from this attorney. If you need to, get an agency b/c it does not sound like this person is looking out for anyone's interest but his/her own.
I SAID right in my post that I knew she wasn't the one that said it...go back and read it again, I was commenting on the very common thoguht process that many adoption agencies, attny's whatever present to aparents. I was honestly pointing out that even though the attny presented it like it was something that could be "avoided" by not having the bmom go home with the baby, it's not really something that's ethical if her taking the baby would have changed her mind...
I also agree with mdesi and Linny. This attorney sounds shady. There is nothing for medicaid to 'catch on" about. The birth being covered under medicaid is not a scam. If the birthmother was on Medicaid anyway, why shouldn't it be covered?
The only situations that are sort of scam-like is the surrogate thing EZ was talking about, and when the e-mom is flown to other states to give birth, and get enrolled under that state's Medicaid. I can see why those states might start examining those situations more closely.
Okay,
Some of you think this is shady on the attorneys part, but she makes no money from this if I paid the hospital. There is no gain for her. She let us and other families know because it is a trend that started this summer with some of her families who have matches and have been placed with babies.These families thought medicaid had covered things and medicaid is dragging their feet or outright saying they are not going to pay because it was an adoption. The hospiatlas have caught on and realize that they wouldn't get paid and or the adoptive families are going to fight before they give their money away, so the hospiatls started asking th adoptive families to pay before discharge or to take responsibility for the bill before discharge but in either case, since you want to take your baby home, you are going to agree. My attorney was tellling us other families to make sure we are prepared for this so we aren't going home with a new baby and 1000.00-3000.00 more in debt unexpectedly because we thought medicaid had that covered.
Some of you guys are missing the posts where people are agreeing that medicaid pulled back on them or that they experience the same thing in their state as well and that some insurances covered at time of placement not day of birth. My original post is not standing alone.
For the families that have insurance that covers from day of birth, they won't have a problem. OUR insurance does not and that is the issue for us.
Medicaid IS covering mom, they are saying if the baby goes home the day of discharge with an adoptive family, they are only paying for moms expenses, not baby's. This means for us, it could be a costly adventure for the time the baby was in the hospital with an adoptive plan until bmom signed off and our insurance took over. (the nurses would know this because we and our attorney would be at the hospital). The papers that allow us to leave with the baby is what medicaid is looking at but those aren't what our insurance company wants. They want legal guardianship and we do not have that until bmom signs off.
The attorney said that we run the risk of losing the baby if we allowed bmom to take the baby home for those days trying to get around anyone getting the bill. You are right if bmom wants to keep the baby she will and thats fine but if we got to that point and she decided to keep the baby, fine, but I am out my money. Having lost money in prior situations where bmom's have changed their mind, this hurts us financially, because agencies or lawyers, depending on what case I am talking about have called two weeks after a failed placement with a new possibility and we had to say no because we just lost $6000.00 on a failed placement and we can't get that back immediatley.
I am not attacking nor did I think that my attorney was attacking bmoms, but what she was saying is that If we can bond with a baby when they come to our home in ten days, it can definitley happen for a bmom who was a little unsure or allows her emotion and maternal instinct to take over.
I know that it is politically correct to be sensitive to a bmom. I have a bio son and have been through pregnancy and raising him. But I think sometimes on this site we don't talk about how hard it is financially and how its okay to be pissed off that your plan that was in the works went down hill. Even if you know it can happen. Lets face it guys, adoptive families take all the financial risk and I don't know about you guys but I am not rich so that money lost is hard for us. It takes us a couple of years to get it back. Has anyone paid on an adoption loan for four years and you didn't get to bring the baby home? We have. Thats what this post was about. How Medicaid was making it harder for those of us on a tight adoption budget because they don't want to pay if we can. With our insurance we need medicaid. This post was to let people know of something that is happening here and to share.
Advertisements
Thank you MamaS for your comments. You are supportig my statements for policies here in Georgia.
OK, I was misunderstanding. I thought you meant the actual expenses for the birth would not be covered under Medicaid, not just the baby. Unless something goes wrong with the baby (and yes, this is coming from someone who had a $60,000 NICU bill on one of my bio daughters, and was threatened with collections until insurance co got its act together), the baby's bill shouldn't be a whole lot. The baby wouldn't stay in the hospital the whole time until TPR is signed, wouldn't he go into cradle care if you or the bmom doesn't take him home?
I can kind of see why Medicaid wouldn't want to cover a baby that is being placed. In those states where this is happening, lawmakers need to know so they can mandate that insurance companies consider "placement" to be the date of birth. This is what was done in our case. If we do get any bills for C's care in the hospital, our insurance should pick it up.
I'm sorry for what you have been through.
aclee
I know YOU didn't day this, but this line of thinking makes me want to vomit. If taking a baby home for 10 measley days would change a mother's mind would you actually WANT that baby still? When M didn't want Tyler to go to cradle care she was encouraged by all to bring him home till she TPR'd and we went to court. She didn't do that for various reason on her part. If the mother changes her mind because she took the child home, that was never your child...it was always hers.
that kind of thinking really makes me angry...like they are trying to protect the aparents from the "risk" that bmom will change her mind by limiting the time bmom spends with her child.
Aclee, I'm sorry if I misunderstood that you were stating that the OP said these things. I guess from reading your first sentence, and your questions, I jumped the gun to infer that you were attacking the OP as the one that stated these things. I'm not sure where I could have thought that, so I'm sorry, I guess.
ChromaKelly
OK, I was misunderstanding. I thought you meant the actual expenses for the birth would not be covered under Medicaid, not just the baby. Unless something goes wrong with the baby (and yes, this is coming from someone who had a $60,000 NICU bill on one of my bio daughters, and was threatened with collections until insurance co got its act together), the baby's bill shouldn't be a whole lot. The baby wouldn't stay in the hospital the whole time until TPR is signed, wouldn't he go into cradle care if you or the bmom doesn't take him home?
I can kind of see why Medicaid wouldn't want to cover a baby that is being placed. In those states where this is happening, lawmakers need to know so they can mandate that insurance companies consider "placement" to be the date of birth. This is what was done in our case. If we do get any bills for C's care in the hospital, our insurance should pick it up.
I'm sorry for what you have been through.
To the OP, I misunderstood, too. I read "held hostage" etc., and I thought that you were implying that ALL of the expenses were supposed to be covered by the AP's. (Honestly, in writing, we call much of your word choice, and the title of the post, "hot language" designed to evoke a strong reaction, which you most certainly got.)
AFA the costs of the baby goes, that was how it was explained to me. The mother's costs are covered by her medical insurance/coverage, and the AP's are supposed to pay her deductibles and the costs related to the infant care. It's not a matter of "holding a baby hostage," it's normal to work out a payment plan at that time.
Our insurance will pick up the baby's expenses as described in the quote.
Also, if people are having medicaid pick up the bill of their child, that is unethical and should be stopped. It is part of the costs. AFA keeping a baby until the hospital gets payment in full, I would double check that. I'm fairly certain that they need just work out a plan w/ the responsible parties.
Long story short, I am sorry for misunderstanding your original post. (Truly, sorry.) I do suggest that you use cooler language about things like this, though, if you don't want the kinds of reactions you got from some of us.
Advertisements
Mdesi,
I wasn't trying to use hot language but the phrase (holding the baby hostage) was in quotes because thats how our attorney refered to a situation where she had a hard time getting a hospital to let the family go home with one child because they didn't want to take over the bill before the ten days were up. The hospital said they would not draw up the papers for release until they signed off on the bill. MamaS's post verifies this is the policy in Georgia. Before the bill would fall under bmom because it is her baby legally until she signs off.
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 thought I was clear in the OP for the topic at hand but in the future I will explain more thoroughly, I wouldn't want to incite a forum riot! LOL
Thanks for everyones comments. No one can say people aren't passionate here!
I too misunderstood. If you took placement on the day you leave the hospital - then your insurance is under law (federal I believe so all state) to cover that child since THAT is the day that placement is considered, not the 10 days. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but in our case our insurance only needed the placement papers, not the TPR.
Our did cover the baby the day we took him home from the hospital (awww I got a big squishy feeling remembering that).
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.
jgs
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!
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.)
Advertisements
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
jgs
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.
It is not your decision to make on whether she takes the baby home or not. She is the legal parent.