this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
217 points (99.5% liked)

Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related

2317 readers
405 users here now

Health: physical and mental, individual and public.

Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.

See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.

Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.

Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.

Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.

Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The COVID-19 pandemic took a brutal toll on Danielle Miele’s family, but after two exorbitant ambulance bills she’s afraid to call 911.

Her teenage son attempted suicide in 2022, Miele said. His mental health deteriorated during the pandemic, and he needed an ambulance transfer from the Roseville emergency room where Miele took him to a treatment center in San Mateo. The ambulance company hit Miele with a $9,000 out-of-network charge, which was sent to collections “almost immediately,” she said.

The virus also left Miele with seizures that mimic the symptoms of a heart attack, she said. Miele called 911 the first time a seizure happened. The 15-minute ride to the hospital cost $4,000 without help from insurance.

A new California law taking effect Jan. 1 targets the kind of “surprise” ambulance bills that put Miele’s family in debt even though they had medical insurance. These bills take the form of out-of-network charges for commercially insured patients who have no control over which ambulance company responds to a call for help.

Under the new law, patients will only have to pay the equivalent of what they would have paid for an in-network service. Health insurance and ambulance companies will have to settle the bill directly even if they don’t have an existing contract.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ares35@kbin.social 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] khannie@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

This was the libertarian utopia they wanted I would bet.

Right up until it affects them.

[–] khannie@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This one has been bouncing around in my mind since I read about it a few hours back.

Imagine picking up the phone to a fire call and saying "nah, sorry, your house has to burn" and thinking that's OK over seventy five fucking dollars.

I'm really having trouble wrapping my head around it.

[–] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It’s kinda the way taxes and insurance works. It wasn’t $75 - if you divide the annual costs of a fire station by the fires put out it’s probably $100-500k/fire. Or $75 from everyone whether they have a fire or not.

Which is also why the fire department kinda has to let it burn - because no one would actually be ok getting a $100k bill to put out their fire.

Can you imagine not paying the $75 for fire coverage? Surely the county could have just added it as a tax…… and actually provided fire coverage.

But this guy wouldn’t have voted for it almost certainly….