Insurance Company Tells Woman to Get Sterilized
In testimony that Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski called “bone-chilling,” Colorado mom Peggy Robertson recently shared with a Senate committee the unbelievable story of how a major health insurance carrier refused to insure her and what they suggested she do to make herself eligible for coverage.
In 2007, Robertson was denied coverage by Golden Rule Insurance, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group. In a letter explaining the denial, the company claimed that Robertson’s previous C-section made her a financial risk for the company. If she had another C-section within the first three years of coverage, the company would not profit from her policy. It was a risk they weren’t willing to take and because the Colorado Insurance Division would not allow them to exclude C-section benefits for the first three years, they denied her coverage altogether.
Robertson’s story may sound all too familiar, but unfortunately it doesn’t end there. In that same letter, Golden Rule went on to suggest what Robertson might do to make herself eligible for coverage: Get sterlized.
That an insurance company would dare to even hint that a healthy woman should be medically sterilized so they can make a profit is, in the words of Senator Mikulski, “morally repugnant.” But let’s face it, women already get the short end of the stick when it comes to health care coverage. Possessing a womb makes us a liability in the eyes of insurers and more than half of them don’t even offer maternity coverage. Those who do will often raise the premiums of women who have had C-sections or, as in Robertson’s case, refuse to cover them at all.
Of course, women aren’t the only ones getting a raw deal from profit-driven health insurance companies. Americans are suffering all over under our current system of health care. But when the largest insurance company in the United States feels like they have a right to plan your family to benefit their bottom line, we have a serious problem.
Image: sxc.hu
Related Posts:
Related Posts:- When Your Uterus is Your Pre-Existing Condition
- What the House Health Reform Bill Means for You
- Stupak Supporters Get Coat Hangers
- Denied Health Insurance Because You’re Pregnant
- Chubby Infant Denied Health Insurance
Tags: barbara mikulski, C-section, golden rule insurance, health care, health care reform, maternity benefits, maternity coverage, peggy robertson, sandy maple, sterilization, united health insurance
20 Comments
[...] Insurance Company Tells Woman to Get Sterilized [...]
Best of Strollerderby October 31, 2009 | Strollerderby commented on Oct 31 09 at 4:01 pm[...] Maple writes about the insurance company who told a woman to get sterilised or they wouldn’t cover her, simply because she had had a previous Caesarean and for her to [...]
Sixth Carnival of Feminist Parenting « Mothers For Women’s Lib commented on Nov 15 09 at 3:34 amChiLaura commented on Oct 19 09 at 10:30 amIs this actually surprising to anyone? Disgusting, yes, but hardly surprising.
Jimmy Suggs commented on Oct 19 09 at 7:09 pmThis would pack way more of a wallop of your grammar was better. It’s “all too familiar,” not “all to familiar.” Incidentally, your collection of sponsored ads could use some actual editorial content.
NotAMom commented on Oct 20 09 at 12:20 amThis just underscores the sad state of health insurance in our country. Were they willing to pay for her sterilization? I had the Essure prcedure 6 years ago and made sure all my insurance paperwork was in place. I got pre-authorization and everything. 3 YEARS afterward, the hospital sends me a bill that is about to got to collection. $4,450!!! After calling the billing department, the hospital realizes the insurance company never paid, even though they should have. Hospital says they will “write it off”. Why are they writing it off when Cigna is responsible, but not when they think I am?
jenny tries too hard commented on Oct 20 09 at 9:16 amjust to clarify, not a mom, the hospital is probably writing it off because someone in their billing department screwed up by not filing/following up properly with the insurance company. If the claim had been denied, you would’ve gotten contacted by the insurance company and the hospital sooner. So, yeah, they write it off because the screw up was on their end, not because they luuuuvv insurance companies or anything.
It is a sad state of affairs, and I bet “Golden Rule” would be more likely to actually follow the real Golden Rule if they were more competition in the market.
Kikiriki commented on Oct 20 09 at 11:32 amI always thought the ‘Golden Rule’ meant do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In that case, I hope the board members and CEO’s are all demanding that their spouses/partners and/or themselves be sterilized if they’re over 40 and have had complications with birthing. Or they could just change their name to “Major Jerk-Off Insurance Company” - at least then it would accurately reflect their policy.
Brian commented on Oct 20 09 at 11:59 amCan I ask a question? Why should anything to do with having a baby be covered by insurance? Isn’t the purpose of insurance to cover you from unexpected loss? For example, you don’t expect to get cancer. Insurance covers you to help cover costs of fighting cancer. If you are a women or a couple who wants to get pregnant, the costs associated with maternity care cannot be unexpected. It’s part of the cost of having a baby. Why should insurance cover that? The whole purpose of insurance companies is that they are betting that you do not need the coverage offered. If one in 50 people use the coverage, the 50 can pay for that 1 person and the insurance company can make some money on it still. If 48 of 50 people insured need the treatments, then whats the point of insurance?
Bunny commented on Oct 20 09 at 12:56 pmWait, is that last guy actually serious? is that even possible?
jenny tries too hard commented on Oct 20 09 at 1:11 pmhmmm…I see your point, Brian, but people buy maternity policies in case the pregnancy or birth is more expensive than they anticipated, i.e. your doc recommends five ultrasounds instead of two because there may be a defect, or you plan to have one baby but are surprised with multiples, or you develop gestational diabetes, or you plan to have a vaginal birth, but end up needing the more expensive c-section. These are all medical events, and unforeseen ones, and the people who purchase maternity coverage from their health insurance provider are sharing the risk; that’s how insurance is supposed to work. I personally think a person ought to have the option of paying less for a bare-bones insurance policy, a little more for a policy with routine coverage, a little more for a policy with mental health coverage, a little more for a maternity coverage, etc. and companies should have more leeway to compete with each other on the prices of these levels of coverage, but that’s just me.
Baby M commented on Oct 21 09 at 11:51 amSounds like it came right from the Health Czar’s mouth.
jake commented on Oct 22 09 at 9:51 ami’d hate to see what’d happen if there was no competition in health care insuance, let alone providers.
Senate commented on Oct 22 09 at 1:44 pmI know that this has nothing to do with the article, but I find it funny that the one person that decides to criticize the author’s grammar is apparently incapable of proof-reading their own comment. Or maybe they have never heard of a prepositional phrase….
KEN commented on Oct 23 09 at 2:58 pmI came across this article quite by accident, but how dare anyone tell another person to do anything, and then go to explain how it would cause them to lose money, and what is more it’s your money, there talking about cause without they would not be in business. There is a life to think about here also, and that suggestion was despicable.
Smudgereeroo commented on Oct 23 09 at 3:26 pmCrazy, crazy Americans. Here in Canada, we just plain don’t have to worry about that stuff.
martin s. jackson commented on Oct 24 09 at 4:29 pmI find it appalling that an insurance company could even suggest that a woman KILL her unborn Baby just to profit from that death. In this the greatest country in the world as a Honorable Discharged Veteran who served to make this country so I am ashamed of the actions of so many Big businesses that profit from the freedom that they enjoy doing it in America. Something as important as Health care should not be based on profit but on HEALTH and CARE of all Americans. I wish that all the movers and shakers of all the Insurance companies sit down and think about how different this world would be if there parents had aborted them. How there family would be if they had aborted there children. How they would feel if there children aborted there Grandkids. Its time for all Americans to take a stand and tighten there belts one notch and get HEALTH CARE for all Americans. If we can do it for Banks and the auto Industry Why can’t we do it for ourselves.
ME commented on Oct 26 09 at 5:23 pmthe real question is who is this lady’s employer.. it is the employer that buys the benefits and then offers it to the employees… and btw employers do not have to offer insurance
Craig commented on Oct 30 09 at 9:04 pmI concur with Ken: Crazy Americans.
Here in the UK we just don’t have to worry about this stuff. Everyone is covered. I think it’s utterly insane that 1 in 6 kids don’t get medical in the states, yet it’s the richest and most powerful country in the world. It’s totally nuts….
Ann commented on Nov 02 09 at 12:51 amBe careful what you wish for.
Kirsten B. commented on Nov 19 09 at 2:54 pmHow ironic. The company name is golden rule. And as most people know the golden rule is, do unto others as you you would do unto yourself. So I guess they should all be sterilized too.
