12 year olds in charge of their own medical decisions?

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230
12 year olds in charge of their own medical decisions?

Do you think the state of New York has gone overboard in putting 12 year olds in charge of their own medical decisions as a way to bypass parental consent for abortions?

If your child is medically treated in the state of New York, don?t count on getting any information from the hospital ‒ unless you have your child?s permission.
Russell S. Hepler, of Transformation 1202 Ministries, found out this sobering reality firsthand when he learned last month that parental rights are becoming a thing of the past in the Empire State
?My 15-year-old step son dislocated his finger in a gym class accident,? Hepler informed Instant Analysis. ?Since the closest hospital emergency room to where we live is located in New York State, a few miles away, it was the obvious choice for treatment. He was seen by a doctor in the E R and had the finger put back in place.?
But the dislocated finger ended up not being the most painful aspect of the experience.
?[A] few weeks later, the first bill for services arrived from the hospital,? recalled Hepler, author of the book Yes! We Can Turn America Around: A Practical Guide for Christian Political Involvement. ?At first we thought it a bit strange that the bill came in his name since he is a minor and since our health insurance is through my wife?s employer and is in her name.?
Hepler?s wife soon found that one error led to another.
?When my wife examined the bill, it contained a few errors of personal information,? Hepler relayed. ?My wife phoned the hospital and health insurance company to get the errors corrected before dealing with the bill so that there would be no future confusion about identity information.?
What soon entailed made the Hepler family feel like they were placed in the midst of a Twilight Zone episode.
Records ? what records?
?She was informed by someone from the health insurance provider that they could not discuss the bill with her,? continued Hepler, who is a conference speaker on Christian issues. ?When asked why they couldn?t possibly discuss her child?s medical bill, which her insurance would be involved in paying, she was told that according to New York State law, since her son is over the age of 12, his medical records are confidential!?
The left-leaning state, which recently legalized same-sex ?marriage? has now turned things around on parents, they now need permission from their children instead of the other way around.
?He would have to sign a release form for her to have access to his records!? Hepler exclaimed. ?He would also have to set up his own account online allowing her access to his records.?
Hepler never thought that this type of communist state control could ever wash up on the shores of America.
?At first, we were flabbergasted,? expressed Hepler, who has been a political and issues activist over the past 25 years. ?How is it possible for any state law to be so incredibly stupid to deny the parents of a minor child the right to know about [his or her] medical records??
He soon found out the answer to his own question.
?Yet, it seems this is now the case in New York,? Hepler finally realized to his dismay. ?Apparently, New York believes that 12-year-olds are competent to manage their own medical affairs!?
In fact, the policy was so absurd that even those within the medical field agree that something?s gone wrong with the state of New York?s health.
?The woman my wife spoke to was sympathetic,? said Hepler, who presents seminars on a number of Christian issues and topics. ?It was obvious she doesn?t like the law any better than we did. She relayed an account of having to discuss adult financial matters with a 12-year-old last week. She said the poor kid was totally confused and scared to death by the questions being asked.? -

See more at: Instant Analysis powered by One News Now

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

This is not new for New York, Gloria. As far as I can recall, it's been at least a decade since minors in New York could have an abortion without parental consent.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

This is not new for New York, Gloria. As far as I can recall, it's been at least a decade since minors in New York could have an abortion without parental consent.

Has it been a decade that parents have not even been allowed to see a 12 year olds medical records?

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Has it been a decade that parents have not even been allowed to see a 12 year olds medical records?

I don't know. Has it? What does that have to do with circumventing parental consent for abortion? It's your debate topic.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

Regardless of any abortion law it is ridiculous that a parent needs to ask a child for permission to see medical records.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

I don't know. Has it? What does that have to do with circumventing parental consent for abortion? It's your debate topic.

The debate topic is whether it is a good idea for 12 year olds being in charge of their own medical decsions. It is just a by product of the parental consent for abortion as that is the reason that it came about.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

I do think a parent should have access to their child's medical records until age 18.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I do think a parent should have access to their child's medical records until age 18.

Only for procedures that they have consented to. There are emergency procedures that require no consent, and a parent would have the right to access those records, and if an abortion to save the life of the mother is one of them, then the parent should have access to that information. But an abortion that required no consent and was the option of the mother should not be divulged to the parents through the girl's medical records.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

Only for procedures that they have consented to. There are emergency procedures that require no consent, and a parent would have the right to access those records, and if an abortion to save the life of the mother is one of them, then the parent should have access to that information. But an abortion that required no consent and was the option of the mother should not be divulged to the parents through the girl's medical records.

This was a 15 year old boy who dislocated his finger, and the parents were not allowed to see his records without consent.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

So then the kid goes "I give consent" and they can see them. Seems pretty simple to me.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

This was a 15 year old boy who dislocated his finger, and the parents were not allowed to see his records without consent.

I read the article. I still don't understand why you are using this story to bring up abortion without parental consent. They have nothing to do with each other.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

I read the article. I still don't understand why you are using this story to bring up abortion without parental consent. They have nothing to do with each other.

I may have missed it, but I do not see where she did that. My understanding was that the debate was about if a 12 year old should get to be in charge of their medical decisions. That would range from a sliver, to a broken bone, plastic surgery, or yes an abortion. It is my opinion, that a parent should have access to their child's medical records. For example Susy Q is in a car accident. She needs to have emergency surgery. For that surgery the doctor asks her parents for any past surgeries and any medications she might be taking (Every surgery I have ever had, they ask those questions). The parents should not be able to get that information?

For the purpose of dealing with abortion or birth control, it seems like it would be reasonable compromise to have a separate sup-section of the medical record that delt with those issues unless there was a complication like an allergy. I do think all parts of the medical records should be open to the parents, but if that is not an option, than at least let them have access to the rest of the medical records.

ETA - You can't drive until you are 16. You can't vote until you are 18. You can't smoke until you are 18. You can't drink until you are 21. You can't rent a car until you are 25. (All subject to area) You can not sign a contract until age 18. But you can alter your body at age 12?

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

I am confused on why the author of that article included the fact that's NY supports gay marriage because of course that coincides with privacy laws.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I may have missed it, but I do not see where she did that. My understanding was that the debate was about if a 12 year old should get to be in charge of their medical decisions. That would range from a sliver, to a broken bone, plastic surgery, or yes an abortion. It is my opinion, that a parent should have access to their child's medical records. For example Susy Q is in a car accident. She needs to have emergency surgery. For that surgery the doctor asks her parents for any past surgeries and any medications she might be taking (Every surgery I have ever had, they ask those questions). The parents should not be able to get that information?

For the purpose of dealing with abortion or birth control, it seems like it would be reasonable compromise to have a separate sup-section of the medical record that delt with those issues unless there was a complication like an allergy. I do think all parts of the medical records should be open to the parents, but if that is not an option, than at least let them have access to the rest of the medical records.

ETA - You can't drive until you are 16. You can't vote until you are 18. You can't smoke until you are 18. You can't drink until you are 21. You can't rent a car until you are 25. (All subject to area) You can not sign a contract until age 18. But you can alter your body at age 12?

Here:

Do you think the state of New York has gone overboard in putting 12 year olds in charge of their own medical decisions as a way to bypass parental consent for abortions?

I still seriously do not know what they have to do with each other. I see it as a veiled way of bringing abortion into a debate that has nothing to do with abortion.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

Here:

I still seriously do not know what they have to do with each other. I see it as a veiled way of bringing abortion into a debate that has nothing to do with abortion.

If it was not for abortion or BC, would we care if parents had access to their minor child's medical records? That is the way I would see the two related. If you took out that factor, it would be a non issue. No one would question a parent being notified of a broken arm or being allowed to know about a surgery.

SID081108's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: 06/03/09
Posts: 1348

The connection to abortion was made in the article that Gloria linked to. They are basically saying why else would NY make this law if not to allow girls to have abortions without parental consent or involvement.

I am curious as to why NY would reduce the age requiring consent to 12 when federally, under HIPAA, it is 18. Does anyone have any idea what their reasoning is on that?

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Gloria are you deliberately misrepresenting this article? Where does this article say ONE WORD about the child being "in charge of his medical decisions". I am so completely confused about your intent, between your bringing abortion into a dislocated finger and your claim that a billing mishap is now a pre pubescent making medical decisions this whole debate is a hot mess of agenda.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

Here:

I still seriously do not know what they have to do with each other. I see it as a veiled way of bringing abortion into a debate that has nothing to do with abortion.

The only thing it has to do with it is that is WHY they made this law in the first place. This is a consequence of that law. They would never have made a law that parents can't see a 12 year olds records if they hadn't wanted to do it to bypass parental consent for abortions. That is why I mentioned it. The debate is whether this a good consequence that now parents can't even see their 12 year old child's medical records.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

They can see their childs medical records. A child just has to consent. Its very simple. Consenting is a one word process. "Yes". See? Easy! I have to do it for my husband to see my records, too. Easy.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"Potter75" wrote:

Gloria are you deliberately misrepresenting this article? Where does this article say ONE WORD about the child being "in charge of his medical decisions". I am so completely confused about your intent, between your bringing abortion into a dislocated finger and your claim that a billing mishap is now a pre pubescent making medical decisions this whole debate is a hot mess of agenda.

Thank you. I was starting to think I was losing my marbles and wondering if anyone else was seeing through the pointless posting of the article in order to drag abortion into it yet again. But about the article itself, it just reeks of conservative Christian righteousness and if that's what we're going to start debating, I have no interest.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Jessica80" wrote:

I am confused on why the author of that article included the fact that's NY supports gay marriage because of course that coincides with privacy laws.

Annnnnnnd this is why I won't click through to the article. Like the gays are the ones getting the abortions, LOL!!! Smile I refuse to give hate groups clicks, sorry. I recognized the name of the site from other debates you have posted, and I remember the comments and the bile they raised. Gloria, if you want to cut and paste the remainder of the article I will read it, otherwise, sorry.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Jessica80" wrote:

I am confused on why the author of that article included the fact that's NY supports gay marriage because of course that coincides with privacy laws.

Glad I wasn't the only one who didn't get it.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

WRONG- Untill a parent isn't legally liable for the child then they have full rights to know and control everything that child is doing. If the child can't drive, drink, smoke, serve in the military, own a gun, vote.. Then the parent is responsible and the children have different rights than an adult. Different societies view that age differently, which is fine.. But either give them full status as adults or don't..

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Rivergallery" wrote:

WRONG- Untill a parent isn't legally liable for the child then they have full rights to know and control everything that child is doing. If the child can't drive, drink, smoke, serve in the military, own a gun, vote.. Then the parent is responsible and the children have different rights than an adult. Different societies view that age differently, which is fine.. But either give them full status as adults or don't..

That is interesting that you equate smoking with adulthood.

drive 16 but varies by state
, drink 21
, smoke 18
, serve in the military, 18
own a gun, ? I don't know. Isn't this like 3 in texas? Doesn't this vary by state?
vote 18

Which age is it? Frankly I don't want "full responsibility" for my kids till they are 21, nor do I want them to have "full responsibility" at 16. Society gives gradual responsibilities with age. NY's law seems wildly young to me ~ Unfortunately it has been put in place because of things like ~ well, maybe like scary zealouts who would hurt a child who came home pregnant and she needs to be protected, or a child who is a victim of incest and can't turn to her parents. Unfortunately those things exist. I don't know how I feel about the law, other than to say that it reinforces to me the importance of maintaining a good relationship with my children. Again, we already have to give permission for our spouses, or our parents, to access our records, this really is no different. Any parent with a normal relationship/non abusive one will see nothing change. What are people worried about unless they shame or abuse their children, is how I see it.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Jessica80" wrote:

I am confused on why the author of that article included the fact that's NY supports gay marriage because of course that coincides with privacy laws.

Haha, I noticed that too. They also mentioned something about this law being "the crush of the communist state" or something like that (can't scroll back and re-read when I reply on my phone) that literally made me lol. Not sure what the law has to do with communism either.

To answer the OP though, I think that parents do need access to their children's medical records, especially if they are going to be held liable for the insurance and billing (and as long as we refuse to be a single payer healthcare country, OF COURSE the parents should be the ones responsible for the bill. Are there actually 12 year olds out there that have the ability and know how to take care of this stuff on their own? If reproductive issues like access to birth control and abortions are the issue here, then they need to craft a better system to deal specifically with those issues, other than a blanket "mom and dad get the bill but can't know anything about it unless Jr goes online and sets up his own account and....."

eta: Sorry, it was "communist state control" washing up on American soil. Lol

Sapphire Sunsets's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 4 days ago
Joined: 05/19/02
Posts: 674

"Potter75" wrote:

That is interesting that you equate smoking with adulthood.

drive 16 but varies by state
, drink 21
, smoke 18
, serve in the military, 18
own a gun, ? I don't know. Isn't this like 3 in texas? Doesn't this vary by state?
vote 18

Which age is it? Frankly I don't want "full responsibility" for my kids till they are 21, nor do I want them to have "full responsibility" at 16. Society gives gradual responsibilities with age. NY's law seems wildly young to me ~ Unfortunately it has been put in place because of things like ~ well, maybe like scary zealouts who would hurt a child who came home pregnant and she needs to be protected, or a child who is a victim of incest and can't turn to her parents. Unfortunately those things exist. I don't know how I feel about the law, other than to say that it reinforces to me the importance of maintaining a good relationship with my children. Again, we already have to give permission for our spouses, or our parents, to access our records, this really is no different. Any parent with a normal relationship/non abusive one will see nothing change. What are people worried about unless they shame or abuse their children, is how I see it.

Can a 12 yr old really give "informed consent" (meaning they know the procedure, the risks involved) to a major surgery? I don't believe that they can. A 12 yr old is not going to understand everything involved. Plus, I believe doing this takes away all the parents right to sue for malpractice if something does go wrong.

It's not always that simple.

Thats not even factoring in if the child(ren) have any sort of long term medical problems. I'm going to have to do guardianship papers for both my sons before they turn 18 because of the issues involved.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

Here is a good piece that explains the law better than the article. Its just an excerpt from a larger piece.

Generally, under NYS law, minors may only receive medical treatment with the consent
of their parents or custodians.4
However, New York has long recognized that minors,
under certain circumstances, must have the ability to control certain aspects of their
medical care and their medical information. A minor?s need for medical care or
information gathered in the course of medical treatment may place them in conflict with
their parent or guardian. This may arise when a minor seeks a specific form of medical
treatment, such as reproductive care. But such situations may also be triggered by
information gathered in the course of routine medical care to which the parent has
consented. A parental consent or notification requirement or subsequent parental access
to medical information may discourage the minor from seeking treatment or sharing
necessary information with their health care provider, damage the minors? relationship
with their parent or guardian, or put the minor at risk of harm.

Consequently, all minors in New York have the right to consent to their own treatment in
certain circumstances and for certain medical conditions, and state law also gives some
minors the right to consent to all or almost all their medical care.5
When minors consent
to their own medical treatment, they are then entitled to confidentiality of those records;
providers may not disclose information about minor-consented treatment to parents or
guardians unless they first obtain the minor?s consent to do so. In fact, all minors may
have the right to voice an objection to the disclosure of medical information gathered in
the course of their treatment when sharing that information with parents, guardians, or
others would pose a threat to the minor?s well-being.

When it is the parent, and not the minor, who has the authority to consent to the minor?s
care, information about the minor?s treatment usually may be disclosed to the parent.

New York law, however, allows concern about detrimental effects on the health and wellbeing of a minor patient to trump the parent?s right to access. A health care provider
must not reveal the information to a patient?s parents if he or she determines that
disclosure would be detrimental to the provider?s relationship with the minor, or to the
minor?s relationship with his or her parents.6
A provider may also withhold information
from a minor patient?s parents if the minor is over twelve and objects to the disclosure.7
In such cases, the health care provider can rely on his or her judgment as to whether to
disclose the information to the minor?s parent.8

Circumstances in Which Minors Can Consent to Their Own Health Care
In New York, all minors have the authority to consent to their own treatment in a number
of situations and, generally, to control access to information related to such treatment.
By law, minors have the right to consent to care for the following health services on their
own (without parental involvement or consent):

? Reproductive health care, including family planning (i.e.,
birth control and other contraception),9
emergency
contraception,10 abortion,11 pregnancy/prenatal care,128
including care during labor and delivery and care for sexually
transmitted infections13;
? Mental health services under many circumstances;14
? Certain alcohol and drug abuse services;15
? HIV testing (although parental consent is generally required for a minor to
receive medical treatment for HIV 16; and
? Sexual assault treatment.17

Providers also can treat minors in an emergency without parental consent.18 In this
instance, access to information may not follow consent. In the case of ?emergency [care]
which was the result of accidental injury or the unexpected onset of serious illness?,
medical information can be disclosed to the parent or guardian, 19 unless the disclosure
would put the minor at risk.

Additionally, under NYS law, certain categories of minors have a broader right to
consent to any and all medical care, and therefore, to the confidentiality that accompanies
consent. Married minors,20 pregnant minors21 and minors who are parents themselves22
have a statutory right to consent. New York law also gives emancipated minors, the right
to make their own health care decisions without the consent of a parent or guardian.2

So first, based on the bold, i think the account given in the article is a matter of poor execution of the laws. I think the information could have been properly disclosed to the parents without any problem.

And as to the rest mentioned above, i have no problem with it

The entire PDF can be found here:

http://nyehealth.org/images/files/File_Repository16/pdf/white%20paper%20final%20072110%20clean%20version.pdf

It also gives some actual scenarios for consideration.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

It truly depends.

Just like in a divorce case, their is attorney-client privilege between the children and the guardian ad litem. That way children are free to express their concerns and opinions without fear of repercussions with either parent. However, if a minor is charged with a crime, the parents would be a part of the criminal proceedings.

Likewise, depending on the nature of the medical treatment/visit would determine how much information the parents are privvy to. If it is something like a minor asking about an STD test needs to feel free to be able to talk to the doctor. If the visits are psychiatric, the minor needs to feel free to be honest about what is going on.

Of course anything that would result in a doctor notifying the authorities should include notifying the parents also.

In the movie My Sister's Keeper the younger daughter hires a lawyer to be allowed to make her own medical decisions because her mother is having her undergo marrow transplants (?) to save her sister's life. Something like that should involve the child's input on what happens .

A broken leg? Car accident? Plantar's wart? Yeah, there shouldn't be any dr. - patient confidentiality from the parents.

I said earlier in the week about my DD's trip to the ER. When they wheeled her to the x-ray/scan area, I had to walk with her but wait outside the door (due to radiation).

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

That is interesting that you equate smoking with adulthood.

drive 16 but varies by state
, drink 21
, smoke 18
, serve in the military, 18
own a gun, ? I don't know. Isn't this like 3 in texas? Doesn't this vary by state?
vote 18

Which age is it? Frankly I don't want "full responsibility" for my kids till they are 21, nor do I want them to have "full responsibility" at 16. Society gives gradual responsibilities with age. NY's law seems wildly young to me ~ Unfortunately it has been put in place because of things like ~ well, maybe like scary zealouts who would hurt a child who came home pregnant and she needs to be protected, or a child who is a victim of incest and can't turn to her parents. Unfortunately those things exist. I don't know how I feel about the law, other than to say that it reinforces to me the importance of maintaining a good relationship with my children. Again, we already have to give permission for our spouses, or our parents, to access our records, this really is no different. Any parent with a normal relationship/non abusive one will see nothing change. What are people worried about unless they shame or abuse their children, is how I see it.

Seriously - I don't equate it society does... Yes the age is all different it is silly.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

This was a 15 year old boy who dislocated his finger, and the parents were not allowed to see his records without consent.

This was a mis-execution of the existing laws so it if you feel that its wrong you don't have to worry. It shouldn't have happened. The beef that needs to be taken up is with the individual hospital that wouldn't divulge the information.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

That is interesting that you equate smoking with adulthood.

drive 16 but varies by state
, drink 21
, smoke 18
, serve in the military, 18
own a gun, ? I don't know. Isn't this like 3 in texas? Doesn't this vary by state?
vote 18

Which age is it? Frankly I don't want "full responsibility" for my kids till they are 21, nor do I want them to have "full responsibility" at 16. Society gives gradual responsibilities with age. NY's law seems wildly young to me ~ Unfortunately it has been put in place because of things like ~ well, maybe like scary zealouts who would hurt a child who came home pregnant and she needs to be protected, or a child who is a victim of incest and can't turn to her parents. Unfortunately those things exist. I don't know how I feel about the law, other than to say that it reinforces to me the importance of maintaining a good relationship with my children. Again, we already have to give permission for our spouses, or our parents, to access our records, this really is no different. Any parent with a normal relationship/non abusive one will see nothing change. What are people worried about unless they shame or abuse their children, is how I see it.

Seriously - I don't equate it society does... Yes the age is all different it is silly.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Ok -
#1 I am not the one saying "adults" can smoke and kids can't... Society does.. the point that you missed was.. OUR society has different ages for "adult" activities.. including sex, if they are underage you can be charged with rape.. If they can't consent to sex, why can they consent to medical procedures..! Our society needs to figure it out.. it is damn confusing, and wrong that you can serve our country but not drink.. seriously!

#2 - A child could potentially have a life threatening disease and the parent not know.. This is so wrong.. Also could have a contagious disease and the parent not know.. that is a health hazard.

#3 - I think in emergency situations that the dr's should follow the "do no harm" policy I wish they all still followed, and if someone was bleeding out of course administer any aid before having to local parents.

#4 - Psychiatrists are not medical drs... If my child needed one or went to one I should be notified, and I should have to approve it IF.. I or my medical insurance was covering it... I do not need to know what is said.

#5 - I agree that children shouldn't be forced to be donors for someone else. At that point you are "harming" the child that is donating, so it is trickier.

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

Psychiatrists are medical doctors.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

You are right.. Psychologists aren't Smile Migraine brain sorry.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Ok -
#1 I am not the one saying "adults" can smoke and kids can't... Society does.. the point that you missed was.. OUR society has different ages for "adult" activities.. including sex, if they are underage you can be charged with rape.. If they can't consent to sex, why can they consent to medical procedures..! Our society needs to figure it out.. it is damn confusing, and wrong that you can serve our country but not drink.. seriously!

#2 - A child could potentially have a life threatening disease and the parent not know.. This is so wrong.. Also could have a contagious disease and the parent not know.. that is a health hazard.

#3 - I think in emergency situations that the dr's should follow the "do no harm" policy I wish they all still followed, and if someone was bleeding out of course administer any aid before having to local parents.

#4 - Psychiatrists are not medical drs... If my child needed one or went to one I should be notified, and I should have to approve it IF.. I or my medical insurance was covering it... I do not need to know what is said.

#5 - I agree that children shouldn't be forced to be donors for someone else. At that point you are "harming" the child that is donating, so it is trickier.

"Rivergallery" wrote:

You are right.. Psychologists aren't Smile Migraine brain sorry.

So does that change your opinion any on seeing a psychiatrist?

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

nope, If my insurance or I have to cover it I should be notified, and have to agree to it. If they want to pay for it they I do not have to know at all..
Regardless of who pays I do not have the right to know what is said. Same goes for talking to a Priest for example, or a lawyer.

PS. My sister is a Psychologist, but I would never want to send my kiddos to one. Smile

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"KimPossible" wrote:

Here is a good piece that explains the law better than the article. Its just an excerpt from a larger piece.

So first, based on the bold, i think the account given in the article is a matter of poor execution of the laws. I think the information could have been properly disclosed to the parents without any problem.

And as to the rest mentioned above, i have no problem with it

The entire PDF can be found here:

http://nyehealth.org/images/files/File_Repository16/pdf/white paper final 072110 clean version.pdf

It also gives some actual scenarios for consideration.

Kim, based on your article, I don't have a problem with the scenarios that they outlined. My only question goes back to the payment/insurance piece of it. If my minor child gets, for example, mental health care, does not disclose it to me, but the bill still needs to be paid....how does that work? Is my 12 year old on the hook for paying the bill? Will it effect his credit if he doesn't? I seriously do not want my 12 year old to have to be responsible for stuff like that, and don't know if most 12 year olds are even totally capable of being responsible for stuff like that. If, on the other hand, I am on the hook for it (which I much prefer as opposed to the potential for my 12 year old to be out there messing up his credit score before he's even old enough to understand much about it), how does it work that I'm liable for it but can't find out any information about it? Like, at that point the provider and the insurance company kind of have me over the barrel because I can't dispute anything about it that I may think is inaccurate if I can't even see what it is. Not that I routinely dispute my medical bills, but I would still like the ability to do so.

I don't know, maybe I'm over thinking this, I just can't figure out how it works unless the state is providing these services to the minors "for free."

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

I think most practices were services are not sensitive (like abortion for example) are not going to treat for non emergent care without parental permission so you would know where and what was happening and have signed an agreement to assume liability.

This is also helpful for the medical records portion. If your child has a physical you should know he/she is going but should not have access to records without their consent because it contains question on smoking, sexual history etc.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Kim, based on your article, I don't have a problem with the scenarios that they outlined. My only question goes back to the payment/insurance piece of it. If my minor child gets, for example, mental health care, does not disclose it to me, but the bill still needs to be paid....how does that work? Is my 12 year old on the hook for paying the bill? Will it effect his credit if he doesn't? I seriously do not want my 12 year old to have to be responsible for stuff like that, and don't know if most 12 year olds are even totally capable of being responsible for stuff like that. If, on the other hand, I am on the hook for it (which I much prefer as opposed to the potential for my 12 year old to be out there messing up his credit score before he's even old enough to understand much about it), how does it work that I'm liable for it but can't find out any information about it? Like, at that point the provider and the insurance company kind of have me over the barrel because I can't dispute anything about it that I may think is inaccurate if I can't even see what it is. Not that I routinely dispute my medical bills, but I would still like the ability to do so.

I don't know, maybe I'm over thinking this, I just can't figure out how it works unless the state is providing these services to the minors "for free."

In general, you may be responsible to a bill even though you don't have access to what the services were. For example, if a husband is covered on his wife's insurance, ultimately the bill goes to the wife for payment. (I had a dr. threaten to report non-payment of $50 for my husband's office visit because I am the one with insurance.)

Same with adult children. I was on my dad's policy during college. Even though my visits were through his insurance, he didn't have access to the records.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Rivergallery" wrote:

nope, If my insurance or I have to cover it I should be notified, and have to agree to it. If they want to pay for it they I do not have to know at all..
Regardless of who pays I do not have the right to know what is said. Same goes for talking to a Priest for example, or a lawyer.

PS. My sister is a Psychologist, but I would never want to send my kiddos to one. Smile

Why not? There is a lot going on in the minds of children/teens. It can be quite helpful.

Just to add: If you have insurance you cannot pay out of pocket for something. BTDT

IOW, if your 17 YO wanted to get medical treatment for something your insurance covers, they wouldn't be allowed to bill him directly the cash price. It would have to go through the insurance first.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"Jessica80" wrote:

I think most practices were services are not sensitive (like abortion for example) are not going to treat for non emergent care without parental permission so you would know where and what was happening and have signed an agreement to assume liability.

This is also helpful for the medical records portion. If your child has a physical you should know he/she is going but should not have access to records without their consent because it contains question on smoking, sexual history etc.

The bolded is wild to me. I cant imagine not knowing that a 12 year old was trying smoking or sex. I have a 13 year old, and one that is almost 11. They both still tell me everything. I hope they always do, even if sometimes it is an over share, like the 13 year old telling me how many times a day she is changing her pad during her period. I think they are still both little girls (even though the big one is taller then me)

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

dp

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

In general, you may be responsible to a bill even though you don't have access to what the services were. For example, if a husband is covered on his wife's insurance, ultimately the bill goes to the wife for payment. (I had a dr. threaten to report non-payment of $50 for my husband's office visit because I am the one with insurance.)

Same with adult children. I was on my dad's policy during college. Even though my visits were through his insurance, he didn't have access to the records.

True, but the with another adult there is an assumption that if there is a problem with the billing, the other adult (hopefully) has the life skills to call in to the insurance company/doctor's office and deal with it themselves. In other words, if DH is on my insurance, I don't *need* to know everything, because if there is an issue I trust that he will be able to handle it himself. I can't say that I feel the same way about a 12 year old. I have fought with insurance companies before, and it's hard enough as an adult who understands her benefits, let alone to have a child do it.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Guys-any normal kid simply gives consent for the parent to deal with it. This seems so simple to me. What am I missing? I must be missing something? Dh handles 100% of our insurance bills, and I've had a ton this year- he's never, ever, needed my consent for a billing issue, and I'm on his insurance.

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

I can't imagine it either but some parents aren't understanding like we are here.

Just to note...even if you carry the insurance you are not obligated to pay for bills for people over 18... they are andthat provider was wrong to bill you. You can also have services without sending them to your insurance

Sapphire Sunsets's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 4 days ago
Joined: 05/19/02
Posts: 674

"Potter75" wrote:

Guys-any normal kid simply gives consent for the parent to deal with it. This seems so simple to me. What am I missing? I must be missing something? Dh handles 100% of our insurance bills, and I've had a ton this year- he's never, ever, needed my consent for a billing issue, and I'm on his insurance.

Bolded: exactly. You're on his insurance and his spouse. It pretty much goes without saying that he's got consent to deal with billing issues for you.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Sapphire Sunsets" wrote:

Bolded: exactly. You're on his insurance and his spouse. It pretty much goes without saying that he's got consent to deal with billing issues for you.

Okay. And in all states but ny it goes without saying that parents have consent to deal with billing issues for kids IF there are billing issues- or when there a kid just gives consent for their parent to deal with them for them. Still seems easy?

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Jessica80" wrote:

I can't imagine it either but some parents aren't understanding like we are here.

Just to note...even if you carry the insurance you are not obligated to pay for bills for people over 18... they are andthat provider was wrong to bill you. You can also have services without sending them to your insurance

Then why was I flat out told it HAD to go through insurance and paying for it on my own was not an option?

(The company that was threatening to put the bill on my credit report faxed me the code that showed where they could go after a spouse for payment.)

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Jessica80" wrote:

I can't imagine it either but some parents aren't understanding like we are here.

Just to note...even if you carry the insurance you are not obligated to pay for bills for people over 18... they are andthat provider was wrong to bill you. You can also have services without sending them to your insurance

Then why was I flat out told it HAD to go through insurance and paying for it on my own was not an option?

(The company that was threatening to put the bill on my credit report faxed me the code that showed where they could go after a spouse for payment.)

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

The doctor must submit to your insurance if participating with your plan but only with your consent. They just can't tell you that they won't submit.

I'm thinking the code is more for the fact that you are responsible as his wife yo assume debt along with him? I could carry dh on my insurance even if we divorced but I'll be damned if I was paying his bills too.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

The guarantor is different from the subscriber. The guarantor is the person 18 years of age or older that is responsible for bill payment no matter who's insurance they are on. The subscriber is just the person that carries the insurance through their employment or however they bought the insurance. The subscriber and guarantor are not always the same name in the computer system. Just because you are under someone's insurance it doesn't mean they have access to your health care privacy.

Pages