Surrogate Mom Loses Appeal Over Health Insurance

[James48]

Source: Associated Press

By ED WHITE Associated Press

DETROIT - A western Michigan woman who gave birth to triplets for another couple is stuck with $42,000 in medical bills after her insurance company denied coverage.

The Michigan appeals court on Friday refused to overturn a decision in favor of NGS American.

NGS administered health-care benefits for Stephanie Lehr of Richland. Her bills were being paid until a doctor noted in her chart that she was carrying babies for a couple, Angela and Scott Sarver. The company said the surrogacy was not covered under Lehr's insurance.

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ap-mi-surrogatemom-nobe,0,6832259.story

---

I guess giving birth isn't a covered condition, if the children aren't DNA connected to you now. One more way insurance companies have figured out how not to pay.

[classof56]

1. Republicons have their way, this is everyone's future.

Selective coverage--and the insurance companies do the selecting.

Hate this!

[ingac70]

2. Send the bill to the parents. n/t

[elleng]

4. Yes. Should be part of contract between parents and surrogate.

If not, someone made a serious mistake.

[jwirr]

9. And that is what the insurance company is saying. It should be in

any contract for this type of birth. She should be covered by the couples insurance.

[customerserviceguy]

11. Unless she's a dependent of the couple

their insurance won't cover her.

It may be a hard financial reality, but people who either have to or want to turn to surrogates to have their children have got to pay the freight for them all the way.

[MADem]

21. I agree--the surrogacy is, after all, if not a "business," at the very least a "contract" situation.

The parents of the kids should pay the bills, not the carrier.

The carrier should have checked her insurance coverage, too.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Surrogacy is often a for profit activity

and in every other case I am aware of, the receiving couple pays for all medical costs.

[cstanleytech]

6. And even if it was not done for that reason imo atleast the insurance company

still shouldnt be the one paying for it but rather the people who will be raising the child should be the ones taking care of the bills.

[boppers]

8. "Surrogates cannot be paid under Michigan law." End of 4th paragraph.

But yes, the "arrangement" normally has the recipient paying all expenses.

[LeighAnn]

16. Still a covered medical condition

An insurance policy for a woman of childbearing age that includes maternity coverage should cover her maternity expenses regardless of the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy. Will they exclude paying for the delivery of children who are going to be given up for adoption? What if they denied coverage for a stillborn? It should make no difference. They agreed to cover her in the event of pregancy and childbirth, so they should.

I remember browsing some sort of surrogacy matchmaking site one time... it seems that a would-be surrogate with her own insurance was looked upon as a big plus.

[TheMadMonk]

5. IVF and implantation carry certain risks over and above the odds.

She was taking those risks, plus all the standard risks assosciated with pregancy on behalf of others, not herself. That changes the nature of her contractual relationship with her insurer.

Question: Why wasn't the couple picking up the medical tab? As is normally the case for surrogacy arrangements.

I don't like medical insurance. I most certainly do not like most of the tricks and dodges they use to avoid meeting their contractual obligations. I believe the only fair way to go is universal coverage.

But under a system which permits refusals, this one is as close to legit as they come. Assuming her becoming pregnant was something more complex than an appointment with a turkey baster, she underwent a medical procedure likely to affect her health and wellbeing and failed to properly notify her insurer.

[cstanleytech]

7. So why do you believe that the insurance companies should be the ones

footing the bill and not the couple who want a child badly enough that they would resort to a surrogate? Just wondering.

[Lionessa]

10. I may be odd man out here, but it seems this expense should be on the

Sarver's. Lehr acted as a vessel for their pregnancy, so the medical issues are theirs, not hers. She should have had that in her contract with the Sarver's that ultimately they were responsible for all medically related bills. If she didn't I'd like to see her sue her lawyer for incompetence.

[McCamy Taylor]

12. Except.. what if they back out because they dont want triplets? Does her insurance pay then?

[Lionessa]

13. All of that should have been in the surrogate contract.

[blackspade]

14. despicable.

The insurance industry war on women continues....

[midnight]

15. K&R.

[BlueIris]

17. Ew. I feel bad for all parties involved.

Especially the surrogate.

[Puppyjive]

18. Pregnancy Discrimination

I think this case sounds like pregnancy discrmination from the imsurance company. Insurance benefits cannot change due to pregnancy. They may be able to get better, but they certainly cannot be less when the only change in circumstances is pregnancy.

[cstanleytech]

19. Except the insurance company will still cover her if she gets pregnant

in the future as long as its not due to her being a surrogate mother for someone.

[Turbineguy]

20. The words "benefit"

and "insurance company" should never be used together. They are in no way connected.